1951-11-30

ST. ANDREW'S DAY PRESENTATION OF REPLICA OF STONE OF SCONE TO MEMBER FOR SELKIRK

Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. This is a day on which we observe a most happy occasion, the anniversary of St. Andrew's day, the patron saint of Scotland. We are thus 'enabled at the same time to pay tribute to those of Scottish birth and extraction who have contributed so greatly to making Canada the fine nation she is. I have pleasure at this time in presenting to one of Canada's most prominent sons of Scotland and a great Canadian citizen, the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce), a replica of the Stone of Scone. '


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all members of the house are happy to have had the hon. member for Peel express their sentiments to the hon. member for Selkirk and other distinguished Canadians of Scottish birth, not forgetting yourself.


Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, having been a good Canadian for thirty-two years I do not see why the hon. member for Peel has singled me out for this honour, but I assure you that I am delighted to have had it. I hope none of these Scotland Yard fellows get after me. If I refused at this time to take something for nothing I would be going against the best traditions of the race to which I belong.



CEASE-FIRE ORDERS    REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: May I ask
the Prime Minister if he is now in a position to clear up the confusion which has been in the public mind with respect to the cease-fire orders which were alleged to have been issued in Korea? I am quite sure the house will be very glad to have any statement he can make.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am not sure that the statement I have here will clear up the confusion but I 94699-941	' ij; U |:
have from our embassy in Washington the text of the statement made by General Van Fleet at the United States 8th army headquarters about this matter. It is in the following terms:
An incomplete digest of military directive has led to unfounded speculation regarding a ceasefire in Korea. Eighth army headquarters released a statement 28 November, 1951, wherein it was explicitly stated there is no cease-fire order in Korea. I don't know how I can be more emphatic on this matter than by reiterating this statement. Amplifying the original statement, I can say that certain military instructions were disseminated from this headquarters to corps and division levels. War correspondents' reports indicate that when these instructions were passed down to some lower command elements there was a distortion of meaning in the text of these instructions. Action is being taken to clarify these instructions for those officers and enlisted men who misinterpreted the directive. I am not at liberty to disclose the contents of the instructions which are related to future operations of the 8th army. I can definitely say, however, there is no mention made in the text ordering a cease-fire in Korea.
James A. Van Fleet, General, U.S.A.



ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Blanchette (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Defence):: should like to refer to the question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra concerning former Surgeon Lieutenant Joseph C. Cyr. Ferdinand Waldo Demara entered the Royal Canadian Navy as a surgeon lieutenant under the name of Joseph C. Cyr, and as Joseph C. Cyr he was checked up to the maximum required for a lieutenant in the medical branch of the service. In addition, his credentials were authentic, and his general bearing and personality sufficient to merit the recommendation from the senior officers who convened to approve his appointment.
As Surgeon Lieutenant Joseph C. Cyr this officer conducted himself in all respects as a gentleman and officer, and at one period of his career he performed successfully duties over and above the normal requirements. Information is not to hand whether or not Ferdinand Waldo Demara is a qualified doctor. He has, however, been questioned extensively by others in the medical profession whose reports led us to believe that he had had all the necessary experience and
1470	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry knowledge which a doctor would be required to have. This theoretical assumption is also borne out in practice.
His entry in the Royal Canadian Navy conformed with all the conditions of entry which were required on March 13, 1951. As the result of the allegations by the real Dr. Cyr, a check was made on "Joseph C. Cyr" who was appointed as surgeon lieutenant to H.M.C.S. Cayuga. This check was along the lines of a check which would be conducted on any officer for a higher classification than normal. The real identity has been established by a complete liaison with all civil authorities, and it has now been definitely ascertained that former Surgeon Lieutenant Joseph C. Cyr is in reality Ferdinand Waldo Demara, a citizen of the United States. As Ferdinand Waldo Demara he has been discharged on the 21st November, 1951, under the charge of misconduct-fraudulent entry. The Canadian immigration authorities have returned him to the United States.


Mr. McCusker:: I object to this statement. It is an insult to the medical profession. The doctors who examined this man and admitted him to the service should be examined themselves.


Mr. Green:: May I ask the parliamentary assistant whether there has been any change in the method by which doctors are now taken into the navy?


Joseph-Adéodat Blanchette: The matter of any change is being looked into.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask my hon. friend if any certificates are required when a medical man enters the service of the navy?


Joseph-Adéodat Blanchette: He had Joseph C. Cyr's medical certificates, not his own.



PUBLIC PRINTING AND STATIONERY ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. F. G. Bradley (Secretary of Slate):: should like to lay on the table of the house the break-down of the information concerning the amounts owed by the various departments to the king's printer as well as the net debit balance in the treasury office against the king's printer, as requested by the hon. member for Greenwood.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. I only received word about this matter a few moments ago and was unable to send him any information concerning it. Has the minister been advised about the storm and flood damage to the government breakwater and fishermen's homes at Rustico, Prince Edward Island? If not, I would be pleased to give him the information I have received.


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: I am grateful to the hon. member for giving me the information. Up till now I had not heard about this storm.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport in connection with the recent meeting of the general chairmen and the vice-presidents of the Canadian National Railways in a committee to review the Canadian National Railways pension plan. I should like to ask whether or not any recommendation has been made as a result of the meeting of that committee, to increase the basic pension of $25 a month for railway employees.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: I wonder if the hon. member would allow me to take that as notice. Perhaps I could bring in a reply early next week.



RAILWAY ACT


Lionel Chevrier: the third reading of Bill No. 12, to amend the Railway Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



PENSION ACT

[Stage Direction]
PROVISION FOR INCREASES IN RATES OF PENSION FOR DISABILITY AND FOR DEATH Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved the second reading of Bill No. 27, to amend the Pension Act.
Mr. Brooks:: Is the minister going to make any further statement at this time?


Mr. Lapointe:: No; it is not my intention to do so. I will give explanations in committee if my hon. friend wishes them.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I should like to make a few remarks. Bill 27 is a short bill consisting of two sections. Of course the important part is the schedule. I think there is general approval among all members of the main principles of the measure. We took one objection the other day with reference to the date. I am sure we would have liked to have the payments made retroactive. However, we realize that an amendment to that effect cannot be submitted as it would mean an expenditure of money, and naturally would be declared out of order. There is also the question of pensioners receiving a pension under section 21 of the act. Under section 21 a compassionate pension is paid under certain conditions. I do not think this section is too widely known, and I think that I might read it.
Section 21 (1) of the Pension Act is as follows:
The commission may, on special application in that behalf, grant a compassionate pension, allowance or supplementary award in any case which it considers to be specially meritorious, but in which the commission has decided that the applicant is otherwise unqualified to receive such an award or supplementary award under this act.
And then subsection 2 dealing with amount says:
The amount of any compassionate pension, allowance or supplementary award granted under this section shall be such sum as the commission shall fix, but not exceeding the amount to which the applicant would have been entitled if his entire claim to payment had been upheld.
Our contention is that pensioners receiving pensions under that section should not receive the same consideration as those who come under the general Pension Act. We realize, of course, that the pension to which I am referring is granted by the authority of the commission. However, my understanding is that when in 1948 there was an increase in the pension we had an assurance from the then minister that these people would receive the same treatment as other pensioners. When the minister discusses the matter I would ask if we might not receive the same assurance from him.
In addition to this group, there is another that I feel should receive consideration. I refer to dependent parents. I believe they receive their pensions through the commission, under section 33 (2) of the act. I would
Pension Act
ask the minister also to consider these dependent pensioners, and we would ask comment from him as to whether assurance cannot be given to them as well.
With reference to those receiving pensions under section 21 I would point out that those pensions are received on account of specially meritorious service. Their cases are usually reviewed with great care. It is found that they are soldiers who have given special service in the field of battle. Anyone who has been connected with pensions must know that, while possibly 90 or 95 per cent of our pensioners are undoubtedly deserving of their pensions, owing to the fact that, particularly in the first war, many got into the army although they were medically unfit, some became more or less of a burden on the army from the time they entered until they were discharged. I know of these cases, many of whom received not only a part but a full pension. If they are to receive this increase in pension, then it does seem to me that every consideration should be given to the man who has rendered meritorious service.
I would refer also to the case of the small pensioner who receives an allowance. I feel that the increase in the pension to the pensioner who receives an allowance should not be considered as income. In 1948, when an increase in pension was given to our veterans, this increased pension was not considered as income. Section 18 (3) of the amendment to the Pension Act in 1948 states:
An increase in pension paid to any person by virtue of this section in respect of any period prior to the day on which this act receives royal assent shall not be included (a) as income for the purposes of the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1946.
If that section was put in the amendment in 1948, then I see no reason why the increase in pensions at this time should be considered as income. I say the same consideration should be given now as was given the war veterans in 1948.


Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfori):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words before the bill passes. All hon. members are pleased to have had this measure introduced at the present session.
I should like to pay a compliment to the veterans organizations in Canada, including the Canadian Legion, who presented their case so well to the public, to members of the House of Commons and to the government. I am sure it is largely because of the very able way in which they presented their case that we have this legislation at the present session, and in the form in which we now see it

Pension Act
Those veterans organizations did an excellent job for the returned men. As a returned man, I am sure other returned men in the house will join with me when I say that every returned man should belong to a veterans organization. They have demonstrated that they can do a good job in presenting the case for their members. They have done so in this case, and I believe returned men should give those organizations their wholehearted support, by joining them and assisting in future presentations to be made on behalf of all veterans.
In 1948, at the time of the last increase in the pension, hon. members from this group thought that the pension payments should be attached to the cost of living index. We felt that when price controls in Canada were taken off we would have an increase in the cost of living index, and that veterans pensions should be governed by that increase. As a matter of fact in the veterans committee of that time we moved an amendment which, in effect, would have given one dollar of increase per month for each point of rise in the cost of living index. That amendment went to a vote, and that amendment was defeated by the deciding vote of the chairman of that committee. Had the amendment been accepted the veteran would have been in an even better position today than he will find himself with the increased pension set out in the present measure.
However, all hon. members are pleased to note the introduction of this measure. It has not gone as far as some of us would have liked. The hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) referred to two groups, those receiving compassionate pensions, and the dependents of deceased veterans. With the hon. member for Royal, I feel the minister should give us a statement as to what is going to take place with regard to the pensioners in these groups.
We have the assurance of the government that at the next session of parliament war veterans allowances will be considered, that the case of those receiving war veterans allowances will be placed before a veterans committee, and that they will be given the same sympathetic consideration as was given to the pensioners affected by this measure. We hope the government will announce either that these groups will be taken care of at this session, or at least that their case will be presented to the war veterans committee at the next session.
There is also the matter of further increases in children's allowances. There is a very small increase in the present measure. Some will argue that because of the general payment of children's allowances in Canada, it

was not necessary to increase the children's allowance under the present legislation. However, I would point out that in many cases, especially where the soldier did not return to Canada or where he has returned to Canada and is in hospital under treatment or is incapacitated, he is not in the same position to take care of his children as are some of us who were more fortunate. I think that the government should be liberal especially in their dealing with the children of war veterans. I have felt for a long time that that is one thing we have failed in with respect to our veterans legislation namely in making better educational provision for war veterans' children.


Hugues Lapointe: It is better than that anywhere else in the world.


Percy Ellis Wright: The minister says that it is better than that anywhere else in the world. That may be so, but still I do not think it is as good as we could make it here in Canada. If there is one thing we should do, it is to see that every child of every veteran has the opportunity to receive in this country the maximum of education that he is able to use. We have a good educational system in this country, and I think that the opportunity for education should be given to the children of our veterans just as fully as it is possible for us to give it.
I should like to compliment the government on bringing in the legislation at this session. As I said before, I think the credit for its being brought in can largely be given to the war veterans organizations who so ably presented their case to the government on this matter.


Mr. G. A. Cruickshank (Fraser Valley):: 
Alfred Johnson Brooks: We consider it as more than half a loaf.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Yes, we consider it as more than half a loaf, as the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) has pointed out. Not being one of those who want to claim credit for anything, I will just say that I assisted in getting two-thirds of the loaf on behalf of the veteran.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The hon. member is exceedingly modest.


George Alexander Cruickshank: But through you, Mr. Speaker, I would say that the government have announced their policy. We voted on it. An amendment was moved by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch). Before I came back here to Ottawa I expressed my views to my branches of the Legion and to the organizations within my branch, and I was supported throughout, unless it was a straight vote of confidence. I believe that the government have intimated, through the statement of the minister, that at the first of the next session we will have a committee set up. That is a matter of record.
It has also been intimated, as I understand it, that the war veterans allowance revisions, whatever they may be, will be made retroactive to January 1. If the hon. member for Royal will check up on the matter as recorded in Hansard, I think he will find that I was the first one to suggest that as to any exemption from income tax or otherwise of $1,000 on any income, the recipient of war veterans allowance should be treated in exactly the same manner as is the recipient of income of any other kind. If the hon. member will check the record, I think he will find that that is what I said. I think he will also find that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), if he did not commit himself-although I think he did and I hope he did-at least intimated that he saw the matter in the same light, namely that a war veterans allowance recipient-and I think that was the argument the hon. member was bringing out a moment ago-should be treated in exactly the same way as any other income recipient. In order to expedite the matter, I personally am willing to give all credit even to the hon. member whom I think the most of in this house, with the exception of myself, namely the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) or to anybody for getting the legislation, as long as we get it on behalf of the veteran. Let us pass the bill as it is and get on with our legislation. I still believe that the government should bring down, during this session,
Pension Act
legislation affecting recipients of the war veterans allowance. Mr. Speaker, through you I appeal to my good friend the hon. member for Royal and all the other hon. members. Let us try to do something for the veterans without trying in this connection-and I will try some other time-to do something for ourselves, and let us bring down this act immediately.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I think the hon. member might explain his last statement. I do not know what he means by "doing something for ourselves". I certainly have not tried to do anything for myself, and I am sure the hon. member does not mean to imply that.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Speaker, on previous occasions I think I made myself clear as to the respect and admiration I have for the work the hon. member for Royal has done on behalf of the veterans. I think I showed my consideration in voting for a certain amendment moved by him. I think the hon. member will agree with that statement. Let him be just as fair with me.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I am not criticizing the hon. member at all. I just do not want any misunderstanding about what he means.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I say to the hon. member: Just be as fair to me. I now suggest that, as far as veterans are concerned, all of us forget partisan politics and put this bill through as is.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker, I want to object to that last statement. If the hon. member is implying that I have introduced partisan politics into this debate, I think he should withdraw that statement because I have never, in any of my remarks, introduced or tried to introduce partisan politics. I am sure that the hon. member does not mean that, or else that he is grossly mistaken about it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I have not the time to look up Hansard now but, if I remember correctly, the other day the hon. member for Royal implied that the members of the veterans affairs committee on this side of the house were not in favour of bringing down the increase across the board at the last session. I have not the time in which to verify myself through Hansard, but I think he modified his statement by saying "with the exception of the hon. member for Fraser Valley." If he will check up on the matter, I think he will find that at that time I stated that at no time had I ever been instructed how to vote, and nobody is going to instruct me in this house.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It was never suggested.

Pension Act


George Alexander Cruickshank: I have never been asked or instructed to vote otherwise than according to my convictions. If the hon. member wanted to be fair in speaking about partisan politics, he should recall that I pointed out that I, at least, used my own judgment and I presumed other hon. members did too. 1 do appeal to the hon. member for Royal to let us forget partisan politics in so far as veterans affairs are concerned. I am not accusing him, either now or at any time, of adopting partisan politics. I am merely suggesting that we all, including myself, forget partisan politics and put this bill through in the next two minutes.


Mr. Robert Fair (Battle River):: The hon.
member who has just spoken has already made three speeches, yet he wants to have this bill put through in the next two minutes; that would not be fair. As the only member in the house who can be Fair to everybody, I want to say a few words. Bill No. 27 is one piece of legislation which need not take up much time of the house. I have personally expressed my gratitude to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe), but I want to take advantage of this occasion to express my appreciation to the minister and the government for introducing this bill. When the speech from the throne was read, many of us did not expect this legislation would be introduced this session. I am glad that the veterans organizations, as well as the veterans in this house, have been insistent enough in their demands to have the government bring down this legislation. I feel that they realize this legislation was necessary, and I hope that before the end of the session another piece of legislation which many of us have advocated on other occasions will also be brought down. I am not mentioning any names, but the minister knows quite well to what I am referring. Then he will make the members of the house, and those to whom I refer, very happy at Christmas.
As I have stated on former occasions, we shall have many cold, stormy days before the committee which has been promised us for next session will have an opportunity of dealing with this matter. The question of dependent parents has been raised, and I do not see any provision in the legislation for dealing with that. Before this bill is finally passed I should like to have the minister introduce something which would take care of those people. In many cases, these servicemen have been the sole means of keeping their parents on a decent standard of living. Since they have given everything on the battlefield, I feel it is our duty now to see that their parents are properly cared for.

If there are in the act any weak spots which prevent the pension commission from doing the job as they would like to do it, I would suggest that those weak spots be remedied. Personally, I cannot pick out those weak spots now, but if they should show up then I hope no time will be lost in having those deficiencies repaired, so that the pension commission can give justice to those people in Canada who are entitled to it. Once again I shall ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs to give consideration to that other little group about whom I have spoken.


Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: I should like to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. members for Royal (Mr. Brooks) and Melfort (Mr. Wright), both of whom spoke on behalf of the dependent mothers and fathers of those who were killed in battle. I believe that these dependent parents are faced with the same rise in the cost of living as disabled war veterans and war veterans widows. I believe that their case is just as deserving of consideration. I should like to appeal to the government to have the pensions of these dependent mothers and fathers increased by the same percentage as the other pensions dealt with in this bill.
On this occasion I should like also to appeal again on behalf of those who receive war veterans allowance. I believe that theirs is a very deserving case, and should be dealt with at this session. If it is not dealt with until the next session, I earnestly request the government to make .sure that whatever is done for those pensioners is made retroactive to January. I hope that whatever is done for them will be as generous as the provisions contained in this bill.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: am not going to repeat anything that has been said already concerning the principle of this bill. 1 have said about everything I can say, and I believe every other hon. member has too, when speaking on the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch). I should like to make two points in connection with the Pension Act itself.
The older members of the veterans affairs committee will recall that up to about 1942 the Pension Act contained a provision whereby it was necessary to go back into the family history of an applicant for pension to determine his eligibility. Often the pension was refused on the ground that the disability suffered was of congenital origin. Previous to entering the service, his grandfather had handed him this particular weakness. The question of congenital origin was a bone of contention over the years. About 1941 or 1942 when the act was opened to take in world

war II veterans, this provision was discussed at some length. It was decided then to remove from the act the provision concerning congenital disability.
While the wording of that particular formula was removed from the act, my impression is that the results of it are still being felt. Now instead of refusing a pension upon the ground that the disability was of congenital origin, it is termed a pre-enlistment disability. I think there is a large number of cases across this country where a man came back from the service and then broke down. Many of them are psychopathic cases. They are ruled ineligible for pension on the ground that the break-down was of pre-enlistment origin. I believe it is necessary for the commission and its advisers to sit down and take a serious look at that particular situation. We must remember, too, the figures that were put on the record of this house which show that 25 per cent of the men discharged from the service for medical reasons were those who were considered to have psychopathic disabilities-in other words, nervous break-downs. I do not think we are being fair when we refuse a pension to that type of case, and for this reason. If a boy is taken into the service he is examined by the medical men who attempt to discover, in so far as it is possible, whether or not that boy is fit for service. There are hundreds of men taken into military service who never should have been taken into the service. If they had not been taken into the service and subjected to the rigours of war they would have remained at home in civilian occupations and perhaps led a normal life. They were never constitutionally suited to engage in the kind of combat that one goes through today, such as Korea, Italy and other places where we have recently been engaged in a war.
I know that I receive many cases and many hon. members receive them as well. The point I want to make, for the benefit of the commission, is that I do not think a person who is affected by the decision that his disability is of pre-enlistment origin is getting the benefit of the doubt established by the act. I say that because much of the evidence I have read, where pension was refused, showed, in my judgment, that they were borderline cases. In some instances the summary of the evidence actually stated that the disability was of indefinite origin. There certainly was a doubt there, but in the few cases that I have read the benefit of the doubt was not given to the applicant.
I believe that a section of the commission at least should be set up to examine the number of cases of that type that exist, or that are in the process of having a decision made, or 9469S-95
Pension Act
that have been refused, and to ascertain whether a more practical approach to the problem can be made. Whether a man is shot with a bullet or comes back with a nervous break-down, or has some other disability arising from a weakness that he may have had before being taken into the service, it must certainly be considered as a war disability, because if he had not gone in and been subjected to the type of thing he had to go through there is a possibility that that disability would never have appeared. I myself believe that in cases of that kind the examinations that the man received on going into the service were not adequate. If it can be ascertained after four years of service that a man had some weakness that brought on the disability because of his service, then it must have been known before he went in; otherwise some other decision would have been made.
Anyone who is watching enlistments today, and the large numbers that are being routed back out of the service after two or three months, can certainly form no other conclusion than that there is something wrong with the type of examination that the service personnel are getting when they go into the service today. The minister shakes his head. Well, I am going to give my own experience.


Hugues Lapointe: I did not shake my head. I said it was not the responsibility of veterans affairs, under which this bill comes.


Clarence Gillis: This bill has to do with disability pensions. I am talking about the establishment of a pension under this bill. I am talking about the boy who is taken into the service, and who is a potential pensioner. If he is not the kind of person, or if he has not a constitution that can stand up to service, but breaks down, then he should not have gone into the service. That is the root cause of a large number of cases that cannot be related to service. They break down for some other reason than being hit by a shell. You have to start at the root cause of that type of thing, and the root cause is taking into the service young men who have not the constitution to stand up to military service.
I said there was something wrong with the type of examination they were getting. We have been in this Korean thing only a short time, a year or so, but I am amazed at the large number of boys who come to me when I am home or write to me when I am here and say: "I was in the service for two or three months. When I went into the service I was declared fit, and I am out of the service now after two months, and I am declared medically unfit." That boy thinks he is entitled to a pension because if a doctor certified him fit three months ago, and another

Pension Act
doctor certified that he was unfit three months later, something must have happened to him, he thinks, in between.


Mr. Low:: That is reasonable.


Clarence Gillis: Within the last year or so, there has been a lot of that, more than I have ever seen before.
The government has gone to a lot of expense. They take that boy, give him a medical examination, transport him across the country and put him in a camp. Then they have to go through all the mechanics of discharging him again, sending him back to his home, rehabilitating him and finding some employment for him. A lot of money has been spent to no end. If he is a little tougher and gets overseas and1 then comes back with a disability, it is said to be of pre-enlistment origin. We get a lot of difficulties in cases of that kind because we did not take care of the problem where we should have taken care of it.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Do they ever hold a court of inquiry on the medical boards?


Clarence Gillis: I do not imagine so. I imagine that much of the difficulty today is in finding doctors who are willing to work for the money that is paid by the Department of National Defence. I have noticed items in the press where the Department of Veterans Affairs were bringing in doctors from the old country. I know that in my end of the country where enlistments are heavy, perhaps heavier than in any other part of the country, there is no regular medical board as such. The boys are gathered up in groups of twenty or thirty and taken to some ordinary practitioner, and he provides the medical examination.
I am saying all this for the benefit of the record, so that some of the experts in the minister's department will sit down, read it and give some attention to it, and later on try to iron out the difficulties that exist with respect to the question of preenlistment origin. We cut it out of the act either in the latter part of 1942 or early in 1942. We cut it out where the decision used to be made that the disability was of congenital origin.
The second point I want to make has to do with the question of administration. The benefit of all legislation is determined by the way it is administered. Over the years the Department of Veterans Affairs built up from coast to coast an excellent administrative organization. It took many years to build that up. I am speaking now of my own end of the country with which I am familiar. The veterans and the administration of veterans affairs had a very happy relationship, and in my opinion that is one thing that
[Mr. Gillis.1
we should be very careful not to disturb. There was a fraternity built up there and mutual respect for one another. Within the last few months the department lias changed its administrative set-up. In a district like Halifax, for example, you have the district administrator who was there for many many years and who knew practically all the veterans in his area personally and was familiar with all the branches through the secretaries. It was like a large happy family. The act of course determined the extent to which assistance could be given; but there was respect there; there was no questioning a decision made by a man like Tom Fenton, for example, of Camp Hill hospital. The boys knew, if they wanted something done and Tom Fenton, said it could not be done, that was the end of it. Within recent months the department considered that it would be good economy to set up one administrative district for the whole of the maritimes, and we are going to superimpose on the district administration a super-administrator, and from now on that one man is going to have the authority and the responsibility of determining all matters of importance that have to do with the administration of veterans affairs generally. I do not think that is a good development. I think the decentralized administration as between province and province was the proper set-up. It brought the veteran closer to the man who made the major decisions.
When one man is administering Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick he is placed in a fairly dictatorial position and he is removed completely from personal contact with the men. It is changing an organization that has been in existence for twenty-five years and which established mutual respect as between man and man. This man is going to be looked upon as a super-dictator and the confidence built up over the years is going to be destroyed.
During the two months when I was home before this session opened I was met by representatives of about thirty branches who told me in no uncertain terms that they protested vigorously this administrative change. I am sure the minister has received many telegrams from the Legion in Nova Scotia protesting this change. After twenty-five or thirty years' experience in the Legion dealing with the Pension Act and other matters from the bottom, I agree that this particular move is wrong. This centralization removes the personal contact that existed. I do not think any money is going to be saved and it will create headaches that were not in existence in the past.

The change is made and I understand we are to have this type of administration across the country. The country is being broken up into these super-administrative districts. I am simply telling the minister what the representatives of the branches told me in no uncertain terms a couple of months ago when they called me in to hear the views of the rank and file of the Legion. That is all I have to say on the subject. I have made my opinion known with regard to these changes. We regret the fact that the War Veterans Allowance Act is not being amended at this session, but the house has voted on it and we bow to the will of the house.
The minister is a young fellow and I am simply trying to give him some grandfatherly advice from my own experience. I have no ulterior motive; I merely want to help him. I believe the provisions of the act with regard to borderline cases are too tight. There is no flexibility in the administration. If we are going to solve this problem of pre-enlistment disability we will have to do something more. If a disability is said to be pre-enlistment, it must have been known when the man came in and he should not have been taken.
These problems of administration can be handled by the minister from day to day. I can assure him that the administration that was in existence previously in Nova Scotia made everyone happy. There was not much fault found with it over the years. We must realize that there are no supermen, and the closer you can get to the people in administering any legislation the better your administration is going to be.
Another suggestion I would make is that some of the field workers be made permanent. I know that in the end of the country from which I come they are all on a temporary basis. They do not know whether their jobs are going to continue or where they can fit themselves into the organization. It might not be a bad idea to make some of them permanent; I think this would add strength to the administration.


Mr. Speaker:: Before there is any further discussion on this bill I should like to remind the house that it deals with one aspect only of the Pension Act, namely the increase in the disability pension. It is a well-established rule of this house that when an amending bill is before the house the main act cannot be discussed. I have not called any hon. members to order, but I thought the house would like to know just what is the rule.
Pension Act


Mr. J. A. Ross (Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join with others in congratulating the Canadian Legion, and national council and other organizations upon the splendid fight they have made on this matter. They made a splendid presentation in May, 1950, but there was nothing for veterans on the agenda at the beginning of this session. Something is being done as a result of the continued fight put up by these people and by members in various quarters of this house. I am sure all hon. members are happy to have this legislation before us at this time. While it does not meet entirely our wishes as to what should be done, it is a move in the right direction.
I should have liked to see the department go further than they have. Until you put us straight, I had intended to say something more. However, there is one point which I think hinges pretty closely on this matter. If a basic rate has not been established no increase will be paid. I feel keenly about a number of applications now before the commission, similar to those referred to by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gil-lis). Many young men who saw service in the last war now find themselves in a rather nervous condition. They were not wounded but in my opinion their condition was brought on by their service. I should like the commissioners to see their way clear to give the benefit of the doubt to these cases.
Another matter referred to is that of co-operation between departments. Lack of this co-operation is costing the country a considerable amount of money. Another matter I should like to refer to is that of dependent parents. These pensions are a matter of discretion on the part of the commissioners rather than of right. I should like to see something placed in the act to deal with this problem.
I did not speak on the amendment, but I must say that that is one case where we are very disappointed. However, we have been assured that this matter will be dealt with at the next session. There are many needy cases which could be taken care of under this other legislation. I just wanted to say these few words at this time and express the hope that the matter about which we are so disappointed will be taken up in the not too distant future.


Mr. W. G. Blair (Lanark):: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) in regard to pre-enlistment disabilities. Before I deal further with that matter I want to say that I am glad and proud that this
1478

Pension Act
Increase is being made in disability pensions. I hope that in the future the war veterans allowances will also be increased.
It is quite easy to talk about pre-enlistment disabilities, but they are most difficult to deal with. I can remember when early in the first war men with certain types of disability were taken into the service. It is true that they were earmarked for forestry, labour or railroad troops, but nevertheless they were taken into the Canadian army. Sometimes their disabilities were marked down on their history sheets, and sometimes not, but the fact is that those disabilities did exist. We have these conditions among railroad troops. Sometimes men are transferred from active work in the infantry to one of the labour troops. Take, for instance, a man with a hernia or a man with a heart condition. Then trouble would start because these men were put into certain classifications and found themselves in the wrong position. It was ridiculous to send a man with a heart condition to the railroad troops where he would be working in the mud or lugging heavy ties. Aware of their condition, these people asked for pensions afterwards, and it made proper administration difficult. These men were always going sick. They realized they had disabilities, and when they came back it was a difficult problem to deal with such cases.
That brings me to the matter raised by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis). It is not very easy to find these disabilities once men have enlisted. Sometimes they break down under training and one becomes aware of the disability. I think these men have received good examinations. They have been properly examined by competent officers in the army. They have had their chests X-rayed and have passed certain standards, but you come to this point. Any person who has had any experience will know that sometimes you get a young chap who has been employed in a sedentary occupation. You may have some doubts and classify his general physique as being borderline. Nevertheless during the next few months when he is under training his physique will improve and he will develop under outdoor exercise, regular hours, and so on. Correspondingly, another man may break down. It is not very easy. It is easy to criticize the doctors who make the examinations but you do not know when a man is going to break down under training.
That brings up the question of those people who become psychoneurotic after they have been through a period of warfare. This is also a difficult matter because there is no standard whereby you can properly make a decision whether a man is temperamentally fit to be a soldier. You can be very easily

deluded in the examination of such people. Therefore you have certain people breaking down under these conditions, and it becomes a difficult matter for pension administration. Sometimes I feel, as does the hon. member, that these people were taken into the army as physically fit to all intents and purposes, but deep down they were not temperamentally fit to become soldiers. They could not take a certain amount of what the soldier has to go through.
Having admitted that, the question then arises whether or not these people are pensionable. They did break down under warfare. Prior to enlistment they carried on in the world in a normal way. Some place in ensuing legislation we must go into that matter and make a proper decision as to what we are going to do with these people. They have a disability. I am reminded of one or two cases I have had in the last two or three months. I had one referred to me the other day, the case of a boy who enlisted perfectly fit and served for five and a half years. He missed nothing, but now he has had a nervous break-down. There is nothing on his history sheet, and I do not think he ever paraded sick, but just the same he is disabled. He has a wife and two children and he is in that position. I feel that Canada should look after that man because of his five and a half years' service.
I think of some of these borderline cases. I think of one case where a man was gassed in the first gas attack in 1915. He was sent to hospital and developed a heart condition from which he never recovered. His file is full of specialists' reports. He was never able to carry on and received about a 35 per cent pension which varied up and down. He was finally taken sick with his heart condition and was sent to the military hospital. His pension was for valvular disease of the heart but he proceeded to die from a coronary condition. I do not blame the pension -board. At the present time coronary conditions are pensioned for aggravation. However, I felt that it was a case of splitting hairs, and again I do not blame the pension board. They could not do anything else. The man received his heart disability at the second battle of Ypres and he died of a heart disability. No person has yet told us fully in a medical sense the causes of coronary thrombosis, but yet this man died of it. His widow does not receive a pension.
As the hon. member for Cape Breton South has said, these are some of the things that we have to clean up. With respect to the case I have just mentioned, I feel that such a heart condition should be pensionable but under existing legislation the man can only receive a certain amount for aggravation.

However, he is dead, and as he was not a 50 per cent pensioner his wife receives nothing although she spent the best years of her life looking after this man when he was an invalid. Therefore we have to make a decision about such cases, and I agree with the hon. member for Cape Breton South that we might very well review some of these cases to see if we cannot in some way do something for them. They enlisted as fit men; at least there were no apparent disabilities. They carried on, in some cases throughout the war, have become markedly disabled, and in some instances have died. Therefore I feel that when the next veterans affairs committee is appointed we should review some of these cases.
Under the existing legislation there is nothing further we can do about them, but they are deserving cases. With regard to the young man who had five and a half years' service and now has a nervous break-down, I feel there cannot be any other answer but that it was due to his war service and is a war disability. There is nothing on his history sheet. He was absolutely fit when he enlisted. Again I should like to say that I think this is an excellent piece of legislation but we must not forget the war veterans allowance recipients-and I may be out of order in discussing this for a minute.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the discussion recently has been a considerably long way from the bill. I am fearful if the house allows a general discussion to continue that it may be some time before we get to the principle of the bill, which deals with an increase in the pension. I am in the hands of the house. If the house, notwithstanding the rules, favours having a general discussion then I will abide by the wishes of the house, but otherwise I think the discussion should now be relevant to the bill.


William Gourlay Blair: I was going to say that the older group are also disabled and should receive consideration. I will put it that way. I had just about finished speaking, Mr. Speaker, when you rose.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few remarks with regard to three different questions having to do with this bill. In the first place, as has been mentioned by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks), there are certain pensions the amount of which is not definitely stipulated in the Pension Act. Discretion is given to the commission to pay whatever amount may be deemed proper. I have in mind, for example, the pension paid under
Pension Act
section 21, and also the pensions payable to dependent parents. Section 21 reads as follows:
The commission may, on special application in that behalf, grant a compassionate pension, allowance or supplementary award in any case which it considers to be specially meritorious, but in which the commission has decided that the applicant is otherwise unqualified to receive such an award or supplementary award under this act.
(2) The amount of any compassionate pension, allowance or supplementary award granted under this section shall be such sum as the commission shall fix, but not exceeding the amount to which the applicant would have been entitled if his entire claim to payment had been upheld.
That section has been used, for example, in the case of veterans who were decorated for bravery under fire. They have not been able to establish a claim for pension; but because they had this specially meritorious service they have been granted pension under section 21. It has also been used in the case of widows of veterans who had specially meritorious service. I know a pension was granted to the widow of my own company commander, under this particular section.
It has always been understood that the amount of the pension would be practically the same as a pension paid as of right. Evert though there is this discretion given to the commission, I repeat, it has always been the understanding that these meritorious service pensions would be just as large, or just about as large, as pensions paid as of right. When we had a special committee on veterans affairs in 1948 this question was thoroughly aired. Some of us said to the minister and to the chairman of the Canadian pension commission, "What are you going to do about these pensions under section 21?" We were given the assurance that every file for a pension of that kind would be reviewed just as quickly as possible, and adjustments made in the amount of the pensions, so that these recipients would get the benefit of the increase being given to the pensioners who were paid under the schedule in the act.


Mr. Mutch:: Was not the assurance that they would be reviewed so that that might be done? I do not think there was a commitment that they would be.


Howard Charles Green: I do not remember whether there was a definite commitment that in every case there would be an increase. But we did have the commitment that the files would be reviewed at once; and I understood that in practically every case there would be an increase similar to the increase being made in the statutory amount of the pension.
When the minister closes the debate today I would ask him to give us the assuiance that

Pension Act
a similar practice will be followed in respect of the increases contained in this bill. I think, too, that the same practice should be adopted with respect to dependent parents. Here parliament is granting an increase in the pension. Let us carry out the intent in full by increasing also the pensions which are in the discretion of the commission.
In this connection I would point out also that in schedule B of the bill a distinction has now been made between the rate payable to a widow and that payable to a dependent parent of a veteran who has died. For some reason or other there is no increase in the amount which may be paid to a dependent parent. The amount to a widow is increased from $900 to $1,200.
My second point is on behalf of the small pensioners. There are many small pensioners who will not receive any increase in money as a result of the passage of this bill, because as their pension goes up their war veterans allowance goes down. In this way the money in pocket will remain exactly the same, and those particular pensioners will receive no benefit.
The minister has said that at the next session a committee will be set up and that war veterans allowances will then be dealt with, and that if there is an increase it could be made retroactive. Of course that would help these small pensioners. But they are faced with a hard winter. They would get no increase until next April or May, and a retroactive payment made at that time is not of very much use to a veteran who is trying to get along this winter on $40.41-it could be up to $50-part of which would be pension and part war veterans allowance.
These small pensioners will suffer during the coming winter, and I would hope the minister would take some steps to meet that situation, particularly as he has promised retroactive legislation next spring. When the bill reaches committee I intend to move that there be added as subsection 1	(a) the
following:
An increase in pension paid to any person by virtue of section 1 shall not be included as income for the purposes of the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1946.
I am telling the minister about that at this time, so that he may give it some consideration while debate is in progress.
In 1948 a special committee on veterans affairs was set up. At that time there was an increase in the amount of pensions. We find it set out in chapter 23 of the statutes of 1948. New schedules A and B were added just as in the present instance. A provision was made in 1948 to make the increase in pension retroactive for a certain

period. It was made retroactive to October 1, 1947, and the provision was written into the bill that retroactive payment of pensions should not be taken into account for purposes of war veterans allowances. This will be found in section 18 of the 1948 amendment, which reads as follows:
18 (1) Schedules A and B to the said act-
That is the Pension Act; and incidentally, this reads very much like the bill now before the house.
[DOT]-as amended by sections thirty-one of chapter thirty-eight of the statutes of 1928 and twenty-three of chapter twenty-three of the statutes of 1941, are repealed and schedules A and B to this act are respectively substituted therefor.
That brought in the increases in the new schedule. Then the section continued:
(2) Section eight of this act and subsection one of this section shall be deemed to have come into force on the first day of October, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, except that the percentage of disability figures appearing immediately below the class designations 1 to 20 shall come into force on the first day of June, nineteen hundred and forty-eight.
Then subsection 3, the one which is particularly important in my submission, reads:
An increase in pension paid to any person by virtue of this section in respect to any period prior to the day on which this act receives royal assent shall not be included.
(a) as income for the purposes of the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1946.
There are two other clauses, (b) and (c), but they are not material to my submission. I admit that these provisions had to do with a retroactive payment of pension, but I go on to suggest to the minister that there is no reason why a similar provision could not be written into this bill to provide that the increase being granted in the pension shall not be taken into account for the purpose of the War Veterans Allowance Act. That would preserve the situation until the special committee could meet next session. It would protect the smaller pensioners over the winter; they would thus benefit by the increase granted under this bill, in that they would not lose a portion of their war veterans allowance. Unfortunately they will lose some of it unless some such provision is made.
When the committee reviews the whole matter at the next session, the legislation can be changed to meet the wishes of the members of the new committee. That is my second suggestion, that the suffering and hardship that is bound to be the lot of these small pensioners on war veterans allowance could be alleviated by writing some such provision as I have mentioned into this bill.
My third suggestion I know is not going to be very popular. At the beginning the

Pension Act
Canadian pension schedule was set up on the basis that higher ranking officers received higher payments of pension. Rightly or wrongly, that was the plan adopted in 1919 or whenever the Pension Act was written into the statute books. There have been many complaints about that. I believe perhaps it might have been wiser not to have a distinction of that kind. However, it was written into the law, and it has been the law ever since. In 1948 when an increase in pension was granted, there was no increase to these senior officers. Mind you, it is not a very popular plea to have to make. The veterans organizations and hon. members of the house are all hesitant about saying anything about the senior officers, because they get more than the rest of the forces.
In 1948 pensions were increased, but these senior officers were left out. The same thing has been done in this bill. You do not read anything about that in the newspapers. You do not hear it mentioned in the house. Only a handful of men and widows are affected, an$ no one brings forward their position. I suggest that if this principle was right in the first place, this is not a very good time to start getting around it in a sort of secret way without anything being said. The only people who know anything about it are the senior officers, many of whom are getting along in years because they were older than the other members of the forces, and the widows of these same men who, in most cases, will be a great deal older than the widows of the men who were not in the higher ranks. I place that before the minister.
There has been some change in this system. Before 1948 all in the army up to and including the rank of lieutenant were on the same rate. In 1948 it was taken a little higher, and captains were put in. In 1951 they have included the majors. The major gets a little increase, but he does not get as great an increase as the captain and all lower ranks. No one above the rank of major or lieutenant-commander (naval) or squadron leader (air) gets any increase whatever. I believe that should be brought out into the open so we all know what is happening. Under all the conditions, I do not think it is fair that there should be no increase whatever given to these pensioners.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I always find it very interesting, Mr. Speaker, to listen to a discussion of matters affecting veterans in which the main participants are veterans. One always feels that these men bring to a discussion of such questions not only intense familiarity with
the subject but a very real concern for their comrades of the various wars in which our country has been engaged. The result is that we have a most interesting discussion which, in the long run, results in the kind of advantage to our veterans that we all desire.
As has been said before, I believe it should be pointed out that it is not only the veterans in this house who are concerned that we do the right thing by our veterans; that is true of all of us. So it is that I welcome the opportunity of taking just a few minutes to say how pleased we all are that this bill is now before us. The day the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) announced the provisions of this bill, it was my privilege to be the first to make a brief comment. As a matter of fact the comment had two points, both of which I feel to be quite important. On the one hand I characterized the announcement of the increases being provided in the disability pension as most welcome. On the other hand I expressed the hope that it would not be long until we might have a similar announcement with respect to war veterans allowances.
I do not need to take up much time, because most of the matters connected with the legislation before us now have been amply discussed by those who preceded me. But I do want to support most strongly the arguments that have been put forward by almost all those who have been on their feet concerning the case of the dependent parents. It does seem to me that their plight should be considered at this time. As the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) pointed out, they will not be considered when the War Veterans Allowance Act is dealt with at the next session of parliament by the special committee because they do not come under that act. If dependent parents qualify anywhere, they qualify under the Pension Act which is being amended at this time; and I am still hoping that the representations which have been made to the minister since his announcement on November 16 will result in his telling us, when we get into committee of the whole, that he is prepared to accede to those representations.
We now have the bill before us; and on looking at it, particularly at schedule B, I find that the minister has had to go out of his way to avoid giving this increase to dependent parents. Schedule B to the act as it now stands-and I am looking at it as it appears at the end of chapter 23 of the statutes of 1941-has just one column headed "Widow or dependent parent". It is true that each of the figures in that column is preceded

Pension Act
by an asterisk which draws attention to the note at the end of the schedule which reads as follows:
Pensions awarded to parents or brothers and sisters may be less than these amounts in accord^ ance with the provisions of this act.
In other words that note makes it clear that although the amounts of pension for a widow or dependent parent appear in the same column with the amount as that for a widow in schedule B to the act as it now stands, in the case of the widow the amount is mandatory but in the case of dependent parents that amount is a maximum which it is within the power of the commission to award.
In the bill now before us we find that instead of just increasing the figures for the first two groups, from $900 a year for the first group and $1,008 a year for the second group, up to $1,200 a year or $100 a month in both cases, the government has separated what was in one column and put it into two columns. To me it looks as though the only reason the separation into two columns had to be made was that only in that way could the government deny to the dependent parents the increase being granted to widows of veterans where the disability pension is 50 per cent or more.
When we get into committee and get to the consideration of schedule B, I hope the minister will consider doing away with the second vertical column in that schedule and putting widows and dependent parents again in the one column, thus awarding to dependent parents the same possible increase that is being awarded on a mandatory basis to widows of disabled veterans. It seems to me there is no real argument against doing this. The representations for it made from all sides of the house have been most earnest and by way of sincere pleading on our part. I hope this matter will be dealt with today. As I have already said, if it is not dealt with today it seems to me these people are going to lose out in the shuffle, because they will not come in for consideration when the War Veterans Allowance Act is dealt with at the next session.
I want to say also that it seems to me the minister, when we get into committee, should give consideration to the matter drawn to his attention first by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) and more recently by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), namely that in the act of 1948 there was a special clause providing that over a certain period of time increases provided by that act were not to be regarded as income for the purposes of the War Veterans Allowance Act. In other words the very request we made when we were at the resolution stage of this

bill, that something like that be done, has a precedent. When, at the resolution stage, it was suggested that this should be done, the minister or his parliamentary assistant-one or the other of them, or perhaps both-suggested that this was a matter to be dealt with under the War Veterans Allowance Act. Here we have a precedent indicating that it can be done in the Pension Act itself.
I can foresee a difficulty if a private member should seek to move the kind of amendment the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has suggested. But at any rate, when he presents it in committee I hope the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) will not start looking around for ways to argue that it is out of order; I hope rather that he will ask the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra to send the amendment across to him so he may have one of his ministerial colleagues move it. It seems to me we should make sure that the increases provided by this most acceptable bill which is now before us will not result in some veterans getting an increase in their disability pensions but suffering a reduction by the same amount in their war veterans allowances.
There are obviously many other matters that arise in relation to this bill, in view of the wide scope of the discussion this afternoon, but I shall confine my suggestions to those two points which I hope will be given earnest consideration by the minister when we get into committee on this bill.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak on this motion for second reading, as I made my remarks at the resolution stage; but in view of some remarks made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra I feel that I must express my opinion on his suggestion. First of all I re-emphasize my opinion as to the defects of this bill: the failure to increase the provision for the children of pensioners to equal the amount being given the pensioners; the failure to make extra provision for dependent parents; and the failure to make certain that those who receive meritorious pensions or those who receive them on compassionate grounds shall receive the necessary extra consideration.
I greatly admire the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. He often presents fearlessly an unpopular point of view in this house. I think he was quite correct when he said it was unpopular to suggest that the higher ranks should retain their higher ratings in pension and so on. He made some complaint that in the last amendment of the bill the schedules were amended so that those up to the rank of captain received the same rate of pension as other ranks, and in this bill

Pension Act
it now includes up to the rank of major. I must support the government's action in this respect, because in Canada I think we live under different conditions from those upon which those first pension principles were based. The theory that the higher ranks require considerably higher pensions than do the lower or other ranks is based on the theory that those who receive commissions in his majesty's armed forces come from what were formerly termed as the upper classes, and that when they were retired from the army they had a certain above average standard of living to maintain. I maintain that those conditions do not exist in Canada and therefore we should not continue to follow a practice that was established under conditions that existed one hundred years ago in Great Britain. To illustrate my point, may I say that I had a former colonel and two former majors working on my farm on the same day, and I am sure they were quite willing to be considered as ordinary Canadians, returning from service to civilian life.
I have also heard this question discussed at Legion meetings. What the government is doing in gradually equalizing pensions as between the higher ranks and the other ranks receives the support of the great majority of veterans in this country and the great majority of the Canadian people. The opposition groups in this house advocated an increase in the basic rate of pension to compensate pensioners for the increased cost of living. We did not ask for an increase in the basic rate of pension for certain groups to maintain a higher than average standard of living. Therefore we in this group heartily commend the government on this further step in equalizing the basic rate of disability pensions, and in so doing showing a good understanding of the thinking of the Canadian people on this question.


Gordon Graydon: I should like to contribute an observation or two on this motion for second reading. Those hon. members who have sat in during the last few months with branches of the Legion and other veterans organizations were particularly impressed by the sane and responsible approach which these organizations have been making to the government, both before the committee which sat during the last session and in the intervening period when the representations were made direct to the government itself.
There is one thing about veterans legislation that distinguishes it from all others. The government need not fear any revulsion of opinion on the part of the public generally
to reasonable and fair dealing in favour of the veterans in these measures. In my opinion the general public is always prepared in veterans legislation to go further than even the government or parliament sometimes suggests. In some instances the government may be somewhat reluctant to introduce measures which may have some unfavourable public reaction, but there is one thing about veterans legislation; the government need never fear an unfavourable public reaction to it.
One of the things that make parliament a great institution is the fact that on the question of veterans affairs there is great unanimity on all sides of the house. I think that is a reflection of the feeling of the people generally. I have always felt it was a good thing that years after the end of two great wars there is still an intense desire on the part of the Canadian people to do the right thing for those who served and contributed so much to our democratic stability and survival in the years that have gone by.
I wanted to raise my voice this afternoon to endorse the suggestions which have been made by several hon. members in this debate, without attempting to repeat those proposals in detail. It is not too late for the minister to give serious consideration to the proposals which have been made, because in the brief that was submitted to the committee last session and the numberless representations that have been made since to parliament and the government it seemed to me those veterans organizations adopted an attitude which can hardly be ignored by the department. The attitude was sane, reasonable and fair, and the claims they made were not extravagant.
I am hopeful that when the minister introduces a measure such as this, which I may say to him has received a most welcome response from all quarters, both civilian and service, he will be encouraged by what he has heard in the House of Commons and in the representations from elsewhere to go further and reconsider some of the suggestions which have been made in this debate and on previous occasions, and at the same time see to it that in some way the war veterans allowance-which I am not supposed to speak of on this occasion- is increased to take care of the increased cost of living that bears so heavily on the recipients of the war veterans allowance and other pensioners who are not mentioned in this legislation.
I do want to impress upon the minister with every bit of conviction at my command the necessity of taking a generous attitude, as has been proposed by a number of hon. members and by persons outside the house. If he does so he will find that his legislation, if

Pension Act
it follows along the lines suggested, will receive an even greater and more enthusiastic welcome from the Canadian people than this bill has. I want to say to the minister that I personally am very grateful for the changes that have been made. They will be of great help to a great number of people who in my opinion who are the most deserving of all our Canadian citizens.


Mr. F. E. Lennard (Wentworth):: In rising to speak for a moment on this bill, to avoid much needless repetition I wish to say that I support wholeheartedly the remarks made this afternoon by the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra (Mr. Green) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I have been very much disappointed because there has been no stepping up of the war veterans allowance this session. I would urge that at the earliest opportunity next session-not when it is half through or toward the end-this matter be gone into fully by, as has been suggested, the war veterans allowance committee, and also that full consideration be given to the widows and orphans who in many cases are certainly most deserving. Their cases are long overdue for consideration.


Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: When this matter was at the resolution stage I expressed my appreciation of the action of the government in bringing down this increase. I 'am sure the veterans across the country will very much appreciate this move. At that time I also drew the attention of the minister to what I considered to be some weaknesses in the legislation. However, at this time I rise to refer to a matter the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) brought up, namely the question of disabilities of pre-enlistment origin.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I thought the house agreed not to discuss questions other than those which are in the amending bill. As the hon. member for Acadia said, there was some discussion on the question which he proposes to discuss now. It is my impression the house decided that it would not further discuss questions outside the amending bill.


Victor Quelch: I thought at the time you were referring to two references to the war veterans allowance, because this question will apply to the increase in the pension. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that members of two parties have referred to this matter, and it does seem to me that one member of this group should also be allowed to refer to the same matter.


Mr. Speaker:: I think that seems fair. I am sure the house will agree.
[Mr. GraydonJ


Victor Quelch: Our attitude on this matter has always been that a man's condition as recorded at his time of enlistment should be regarded as his true condition. Therefore no deduction should be made in the amount of the pension on the ground that the disability was of pre-enlistment origin. Veterans committees in the past have felt strongly on this matter; considerable discussion has taken place, and efforts have been made to remove what many felt was injustice to veterans who had served their country.
Many individual cases were investigated by the committee where veterans had been refused pensions, say in the case of stomach ulcers, on the ground that they were of preenlistment origin. It might be shown that at the time a man enlisted he admitted that he had indigestion, a tummyache, a bellyache or whatever you like to call it, and therefore it was ruled by the board that that condition existed before he enlisted. As a result he would be refused a pension, or receive only a pension for the aggravation of that condition.
It was the same with regard to tuberculosis. A soldier might admit on elistment that he had had periodic coughs, and it would be ruled that he had suffered from tuberculosis before he enlisted. There are other types of cases with which I am more familiar where men might have suffered accidents, perhaps five or ten years before enlistment. A man may have dropped a hammer or crowbar on his foot. For a time he would be unable to work, then would recover from his disability and go back to work. He would carry on for five or ten years and then enlist. After being three or four years in the army he might begin to have trouble with his foot; they would find it recorded that he had had an accident, and the ruling would be that his condition was pre-enlistment.
That is why we contend that the condition as recorded at the time of enlistment should be considered to be the true condition, unless its origin was within a few months of enlistment. After a man has served his country for two or three years under severe conditions it should not be claimed that such a condition existed prior to enlistment. Veterans committees on several occasions have tried to improve this situation. For instance, the act provided that no deductions could be made on account of disability of pre-enlistment origin unless it was wilfully concealed or recorded. The words "wilfully concealed" were struck out in the hope that the change would permit more veterans to become pensionable. I believe all those cases have been investigated, but I do not know how many have been awarded pensions or have had their

pensions increased. We are still faced with the problem of the men whose condition is claimed to be of pre-enlistment origin.
Then we went into the benefit of the doubt clause. Members of the committee amended the clause because they felt that many veterans were not getting the full benefit of the doubt. I said at the time that I did not believe the amendment would bring about much improvement. I do not know whether there has been improvement as a result of that amendment, because we know there are many cases where the pension commission feel they have to rule that a condition was of pre-enlistment origin in order to carry out the act. I believe the officials of the pension commission and of the department bend over backward in carrying out the provisions of the act, but so long as the act is worded as it is they find it impossible to carry out its provisions and at the same time give many veterans a pension. It is necessary that we make further amendments to the Pension Act.
I hope that when the veterans committee is set up next year to deal with the War Veterans Allowance Act the terms of reference will be sufficiently wide to permit it to go into the Pension Act and deal with the question of disabilities of pre-enlistment conditions. There is a great deal of dissatisfaction among veterans on this count.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think this has been a model debate from the point of view of brevity and the thoroughness with which the subject has been discussed. I rise merely to join other hon. members who have supported the viewpoint expressed by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) and the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) with regard to increases in pensions and in particular increases in the case of persons receiving small pensions at the moment.
What is being done by this legislation is to carry out the will of parliament and of the Canadian people. As a matter of fact increased pensions would have been passed a year or two years ago had the ministry brought this matter before parliament. Increases in pensions were being demanded by branches of the Legion everywhere in this country, and they would have received the support of parliament had the ministry seen fit to introduce the necessary amendments. One increase was given, but further increases would have been acceptable, not only to every member of parliament but to the Canadian people as a whole.
There are two matters I wish to refer to. The first is that the increase in pension should not be included as income for the purposes of the War Veterans Allowance Act,
Pension Act
1946. I think the arguments that have been advanced in support of that proposition are worthy of consideration. The minister would receive universal approbation if he followed out the suggestions that have been made by the two members to whom I have referred and the others who have followed their lead in that regard.
The second matter to which I should like to refer has to do with parents, in particular silver star mothers, and the allowances granted to them. I have found that the chairman of the pension board and those associated with him are most considerate and generous in their treatment of the cases brought to their attention, not only by dependent parents but by pensioners in general. However, misunderstandings do arise and I am afraid that too often the sections of the Pension Act are more restrictive than parliament intended them to be. Too many are being denied pensions because of the contention that their condition is of pre-enlistment origin.
The other matter to which I am referring has to do with allowances and pensions being paid to parents or persons in the place of parents. The pertinent section is section 33, subsection 5, which provides that a pension to any parent or person in the place of a parent shall be subject to review from time to time and shall be continued, increased, decreased or discontinued in accordance with the amount deemed necessary by the commission to provide maintenance for such person, but in no cose shall such pension exceed the amount of pension prescribed by the act. It would be a worthy action on the part of the minister and the government if they would agree that the amount of pension payable to parents and those in a similar position, in particular silver star mothers, should be increased to the extent being provided in the bill now before the house.
There are other matters one could discuss, but I am not going to detain the house. All I want to do is support the contention expressed by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) in general and in particular by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) that the minister even now give consideration to action which will remove a source of deep dissatisfaction. Unless the suggestion is accepted the increases will have the effect of depriving some who are receiving war veterans allowance of at least a portion of their allowance. It is not going to be a costly change, and it will go a long way toward removing a cause of disaffection which will be intensified as the months go by and those in receipt of war veterans allowance begin to realize the effect of these

Pension Act
increases. Parliament but carries out in the amendments to the Pension Act what Canadian people asked for long ago. I do not want to be one of those who by talking will do anything to delay bringing about a general increase in pensions which in my opinion should have been brought in a long while ago.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I just wish to make one point. As I understand it the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) has not taken the position that the question of an increase in allowance for those on war veterans allowances is an unfair suggestion. My understanding is that in effect he has said: "We are not going to deal with it at this session; we will deal with it next session". If that is correct, then it seems to me that is an intolerable position for him to take. He really says: "We are going to do this but we will just leave it over and let these boys get through the winter as best they can". Indeed somebody-it was not the minister or any representative of the minister-said to me this afternoon: "Oh, well, they will get along somehow; they can get unemployment relief". That seems to me an intolerable suggestion. Therefore I come to this point; that if I am correct, if this is something which is admitted in principle, if this is something which is going to be done, then it is an utterly intolerable position for the government to take to say they will just let these men stew in their own juice until some time next session. It really means, as far as I can see-


Hugues Lapointe: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It does occur to me that the hon. member is now discussing the War Veterans Allowance Act. Is the house ready for the question?


Howard Charles Green: Is the minister not making any statement?


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Hugues Lapointe: In closing the debate I intend to follow the example of brevity given by hon. members today. I do not intend to follow their example on another matter, inasmuch as I do not intend to speak in such a way as to be out of order on the bill. Possibly the debate might have been somewhat briefer if some hon. members had debated the bill before them instead of introducing many other matters, interesting as they are, pertaining to veterans legislation. I am sorry the hon.
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) is not here. He always likes to give me fatherly advice-


Howard Charles Green: Grandfatherly.


Hugues Lapointe: -and I always respect it as such because I was brought up to believe in a certain deference toward what I might call advanced age. In other words, I was taught that regardless of whether or not the old man was right you never interrupted him at the dinner table. I did not call my hon. friend to order, but when we again have an opportunity of discussing the matters he raised today I shall be very glad to answer some of his points. So far as that is concerned, my remarks might also refer to the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair). There again we always find that his views on matters having a medical aspect are very interesting to the house, and I am not sure that in many instances I do not share them to some extent.
The point has been brought up by many hon. members that veterans receiving pensions under section 21 are not likely to benefit under this bill. As has been pointed out, however, the pension paid under this section of the act is one which is determined by the pension commission. It is not paid as of right, but the rate on which it is based may be the same as that of the disability pensioner who receives a pension under the act as a matter of entitlement. The last time increases were introduced in the Pension Act every pension paid, under section 21 for what is called meritorious service, either to the veteran himself or to the widow, was re-examined by the commission. I believe the assurance which the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) referred to as having been given in the committee at that time was that every one of these cases would be reviewed in the light of the new increases, and I am certainly happy to tell the house that this procedure will be followed again this time.
The same procedure will apply to pensions paid to dependent parents. There again these pensions are paid after a full investigation by the commission. I do not think it is necessary for me to give all the details of the procedure followed, but briefly when an application for payment is received the commission arranges for a pension visitor to call on the applicant. He submits a report containing full information as to the physical condition and economic circumstances of the applicant. Where there are unmarried children living with the parents who, in the opinion of the commission, should be earning sufficient to permit them to contribute to the support of such parent, section 33 (6) of the

Pension Act
act provides that such child shall be deemed to be contributing not less than $10 per month for such support. This is the procedure that has been followed, and the cases of dependent parents will also be reviewed by the commission in the light of the increases that have been given. That of course will be done within the statutory limits. I might point out to hon. members, however, that while I do not know the exact number, I am informed that only a very small percentage at this time receive the full amount under the statute. This comes about as the result of investigations carried on by the commission. It might also be taken into account that of the slightly more than 11,000 dependent parents-that is, those who are receiving single pensions as fathers or as mothers, or where both parents are receiving them-over 5,000 will be qualifying under the old age security legislation after the first of January.
A further point has been mentioned by a number of members during the debate, when they have suggested that a section should be introduced into the bill so that increases made effective by this measure will not be considered as income for the purpose of war veterans allowances. The example was given of the procedure followed in 1948, when the last increases were brought forward. The bill introduced at that time stated that an increase in pension paid to any person by virtue of the section, in respect of any period prior to the day on which the act was to receive royal assent, was not to be included as income for the purpose of the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1946. The circumstances existing at that time which made necessary the introduction of that section were not the same as those existing today. It will be recalled that at that time the increases were voted by parliament after having been considered in the spring of the year-perhaps it was in June-by the parliamentary committee. It had been announced that these increases in the rates would be retroactive to October 1, 1947. So in order that the recipients of war veterans allowances who had received payments between October 1 and the date when the new increases became effective would not be considered as having received overpayment under the provisions of the War Veterans Allowance Act, and as a result have their payments reduced for a period of months, this section was introduced.
I am sure if hon. members who discussed the point this afternoon will refer to the report of the parliamentary committee of 1948, at which time the amendment was introduced-and while I may be mistaken I
believe it was brought forward at the suggestion of the then chairman, who is now my parliamentary assistant-they will see that amendment was put in the act after it had been pointed out that, without it, the effect of the act would be to bring about overpayment to recipients of war veterans allowances. As I said before, under this measure the increases are to come into force on January 1. Whatever changes may be decided upon by the committee at the next session will be made retroactive to the first of January. So the situation which existed in 1948, and which made that section necessary, does not exist today.
I believe that is all I had intended to say at this time, with the exception of possibly adding a few words along the lines followed by other hon. members during the course of the debate, both on the resolution and on the bill.
Hon. members have said that the meritorious features of the legislation can be traced to the work of the veterans organizations in Canada. I would be the last to make any effort to deny the efficiency of the work done by those organizations, by the Canadian Legion on the one hand and the national council of veterans associations on the other. As Minister of Veterans Affairs it is my good fortune to administer a department which has to deal with a large section of the Canadian population. In so doing I have always been able to count on the co-operation and advice of the main bodies comprising this section of the veteran population. It is a relationship I have always appreciated, and one I hope will continue. Much has been said in the house on previous occasions with respect to legislation affecting veterans, legislation which has resulted from what I might describe as round-table conferences between these veteran groups and the department. I pay them this tribute today, and express the hope that this happy relationship may continue.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Schedules A and B.
Howard Charles Green: When the minister made his announcement on November 16, I believe it was, he said that the unemployability supplement would go out of use at the end of the present year. I should like to have him state what arrangements are to be made for the continued treatment of the veterans who have been able to qualify for this unemployability supplement. I believe provisions for that treatment are contained in class 5G of the regulations. Perhaps the minister will correct me if that is not the right class.

Pension Act


Hugues Lapointe: I believe that is correct.


Howard Charles Green: I should hope that these
veterans would not lose their right of treatment because the unemployability supplement is being replaced by an increase in the pension. Unless some new regulation is brought in it would appear that they will lose those rights. Would the minister tell the committee what steps the department is taking to ensure that these veterans will retain such treatment rights.


Hugues Lapointe: I thought that at one stage I had made an announcement on this matter. I can assure my hon. friend that veterans who had qualified for treatment because they had become recipients of the unemployability supplement will continue to have this treatment.


Howard Charles Green: That hardly goes far enough, because there will be other veterans who, if the unemployability supplement had remained in effect, would have qualified for such treatment.


Hugues Lapointe: I do not know just what the wording of the regulation will be, but the general idea is that veterans who would have qualified had the supplement continued will get the treatment. I believe that is what I said the other day. I have not seen the wording of the regulation on which the officers of the department are working, but I am sure no one is going to lose any benefit of treatment which he had been receiving under the supplement.


Howard Charles Green: Or those who would have been able to qualify for the supplement in the future?


Hugues Lapointe: I am not sure about that.


Howard Charles Green: I believe, Mr. Chairman, that should be looked into, and I would hope that those who would have been able to qualify in the future for the unemployability supplement will be made eligible for this treatment.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I believe it would be fair to suggest that neither the hon. gentleman who has just spoken nor any of the others who so bitterly attacked and eagerly demanded the removal of this supplement, at any time suggested that there was anything good in it. The hon. gentleman is not thanking us for having removed this unemployability supplement, but now he finds he wishes to preserve for posterity the benefits, if they were benefits, under that legislation. A little consistency might not be expected, but it would be called for in a situation of this sort.


Howard Charles Green: It is unfortunate that the hon. member for Fraser Valley is not here to

remind the parliamentary assistant that partisan politics are supposed to be taboo in this debate.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: That is not partisan politics.


Howard Charles Green: The statement made by the parliamentary assistant is absolutely unfair, because we did say that the unemployability supplement should not be used as a measure to avoid increasing the pension. I do not want to go into that argument now because this is not the place to do it, but I am not withdrawing one word I said about that attempt to make the unemployability supplement take the place of a proper increase in the pension. What I am asking the minister about now is treatment benefits which were not contained in the unemployability supplement. These provisions for treatment were apart from the unemployability supplement, and I am asking if those treatment privileges are to be continued?


Hugues Lapointe: As I said before, they will be continued to those who have been recipients of unemployability supplements up to the first of January.


Howard Charles Green: What about those who receive the new old age pension? What will their treatment rights be?


Hugues Lapointe: What relationship is there?


Howard Charles Green: Are they to be given any treatment rights?


Hugues Lapointe: The fact that a veteran has reached the age of 70 and thereby qualifies for old age security payments does not mean that he gets entitlement to treatment in a veterans' hospital. By itself that would not be sufficient.


Howard Charles Green: The question is not quite as foolish as the minister thinks.


Hugues Lapointe: I did not think it was foolish. I wish my hon. friend would put his questions clearly so I could answer them.


Howard Charles Green: I shall try to put them clearly. There are veterans who have been on war veterans allowance who have been advised to go on old age pension when they reach 70 years of age. In some cases they are receiving a partial pension. What will their treatment rights be?


Hugues Lapointe: I have made an announcement in this house concerning that matter in answer to a question by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. There has been no change in policy since that announcement some months ago.


Howard Charles Green: What was the policy then?


Hugues Lapointe: I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this pertains to war veterans allowance

Pension Act
and not to the Pension Act. I do not see why I should be called upon to repeat what I have said in the house, because it is not in order on this bill. Some of these men are receiving a small pension, but it is not by virtue of this small pension that they are getting the treatment.


Howard Charles Green: They are small pensioners who have been receiving in addition the war veterans allowance, and they have treatment benefits.


Hugues Lapointe: By virtue of the war
veterans allowance.


Howard Charles Green: They are still getting a small pension, but if they are over 70 they are not getting the war veterans allowance but the old age pension. I should like to know whether they will have treatment benefits.


Hugues Lapointe: Those veterans who are receiving a small pension, to which is added war veterans allowance, and who are receiving treatment because they are recipients of war veterans allowance, are not affected by this bill. I am trying to explain to my hon. friend that their qualification for treatment comes from the fact that they are recipients of war veterans allowances.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But they will still be entitled to that treatment?


Hugues Lapointe: We might as well continue to be out of order, and I shall repeat what I said some time ago, that those who would be recipients of war veterans allowance were it not for the fact that they qualified for old age security will qualify for treatment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to have a few words with the minister on the question of dependent parents. There is no doubt, Mr. Chairman, that this is quite in order. Dependent parents are mentioned in schedule B, and we are now discussing section 1 which relates to schedules A and B. As I recall the statement of the minister when he closed the debate on second reading, the cases of pensioners who are drawing their pensions under section 21 of the Pension Act will be reviewed. I take it that the purpose of that review is to ascertain whether those pensions could be increased. It is also to be noted that the statutory ceiling on the amount that can be paid to pensioners under section 21 is increased by this act, because the statutory ceiling is the same as it would be if they qualified for a full claim as set out in schedule A.
The point I wish to make is that it seems to me it is an announcement of substance when the minister says that the cases of those drawing their pensions under section 21 will be reviewed. The ceiling has been increased,
so there is a chance that the amount of pension those men are drawing may be increased. I hope that will be the case. Then the minister says that the same thing will be done with respect to those drawing pensions under section 33 of the act. He qualified his statement right away, as he had to, by saying that of course there is a statutory provision with regard to section 33. I am about to suggest that the same substance there was to the promise with regard to cases under section 21 does not obtain with respect to cases under section 33 because the ceiling on the amount the commission can award under section 33 is not being increased by this act. At the present time the ceiling on pensions paid under section 33 is $900 a year or $75 a month, as set out in schedule B in chapter 23 of the statutes of 1948. The ceiling in schedule B to the bill now before us is still the same $900 a year or $75 a month. To tell us that many of these cases-the dependent parents, dependent mothers and so on-are not now at the maximum does not, I submit, alter the fact that there is not as much hope that this review will produce increases of any substance as there was in the case of those that came under section 21.
As I listened to the minister, up to a point that was all that bothered me about his announcement, namely that the chances of much of an increase would not be great if you do not raise the ceiling. As I said when I was speaking on second reading, I do not see why the minister bothered to break into two columns what was formerly in one column. I think he should have kept the schedule as it was, and should have raised the figure for dependent parents just the same as he did for widows. But the minister went on this afternoon and said that some 5,000 of the people drawing pensions under section 33 of the act-that is, dependent parents drawing compassionate pensions- would qualify for old age security payments starting in January, 1952. Then I began to wonder what is going to be the result of this review concerning those under section 33. As to those under section 21, it may result in an increase. Is there any possibility that the review of those under section 33, once those 5,000 start to draw $40 old age security, will result in their pension under section 33 being reduced? I should like the minister to answer that latter question, and I should also like him to comment on why he troubled to divide one column into two in the schedule.


Hugues Lapointe: I might point out to my hon. friend that, as he knows quite well, under section 33 there is what you might call a

Pension Act
means test. As I explained before, the commission has to take into consideration the degree of dependency, it has to look into the financial circumstances of the applicant and it has to consider all other sources of income of the applicant. That is why I mentioned this afternoon that it might be interesting to note that some 5,000 of these dependent pensioners will be receiving old age security. Under the act it is not a pension as of right, and the commission must take into consideration all these facts.
As to dividing schedule B of the act into three columns instead of two or two columns instead of one, 1 can assure my hon. friend that he is imputing to me motives which I never had. As a matter of fact, I may tell him this. Before any decision was made as to increases and what they would be, I personally suggested that in this schedule a separate column should be established for those pensions that were paid as of right and another column for those that were paid at the discretion of the commission. That has nothing to do with the present legislation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will accept the minister's comment with regard to those columns although I would point out that as one looks at those two columns, the result is that, as to dependent parents, there is no increase for them. However, to come back to this other point, it seems to me that it gets worse as it goes on. Earlier in the game we were worried because dependent parents were not going to get any increase in the amount of their pensions under section 33 of the act. But now the minister has twice drawn attention to the fact that some 5,000 of these people will be drawing old age security as from January
1.	He has also drawn attention to the fact that there is what he himself has called a means test in section 33. You have only to put two and two together in order to realize what is going to happen.


Hugues Lapointe: Not necessarily.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister says "not neces-satily".


Hugues Lapointe: That is not what happened when the last increase took place. At that time these cases were reviewed by the commission, and a great majority of them were increased because the decision of the commission was taken in the light of the general increases that had been given. I have every reason to believe that that will be the way the commission will review these cases. My hon. friend of course realizes that decisions or actions taken by the commission are not at the discretion of the minister, but I think

that past experience would show that we can fairly well rely on a generous attitude on their part.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I greatly appreciate the comment the minister has now made. I certainly hope the commission will operate in that manner. But we have had experience with these things and, from the emphasis that is placed upon the means test in section 33, it would look to me as though the result will be that if these dependent parents do not lose from their pension under section 33 the whole of the $40 they may get as an old age pension, they will lose part of it. They will get a bit of an increase, but their means will be assessed in the light of the new $40 and they will end up not with the $40 old age security as a net increase over their present position; and as a result of this review it is likely that there will be some cases that will not end up with any increase at all.


Hugues Lapointe: They will end up with an over-all increase in income.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They may end up with an amount that will give them an over-all increase in income but it is not likely that it will be an increase to the extent of the full $40 which will be the case with so many of our older Canadians, again because there is a means test in section 33 of this act as there is-I know you are looking at me with a frown, Mr. Chairman, and I will just say this one word and then leave this subject- in the War Veterans Allowance Act as well.
To get back in order, Mr. Chairman, or in other words to get back to this specific act, may I say that the discussion we have had underlines more clearly than before the need for increasing the ceiling in column 2 of schedule B and for permitting payment of pensions to dependent parents equal to the increased amount that will be allowed to widows of veterans. The widow's pension is being brought up to $100 a month, and properly so; the whole house is grateful for that. I think the same amount should be the figure for dependent parents.


Howard Charles Green: From the minister's statement it would appear that the main reason for making this change is that several thousand of the dependent parents are over 70 years of age.


Hugues Lapointe: No.


Howard Charles Green: And that they will be receiving the old age pension.


Hugues Lapointe: I never said that.


Howard Charles Green: The minister has mentioned two or three times that 5,000 or more were

now to get the old age pension. But surely that is not sufficient reason for changing this schedule. Previously the figure was set at S900 for the widows and for the dependent parents. The figure is raised to $1,200 for the widow but remains at $900 for the dependent parents. It does seem to me that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is right when he pleads for an increase to $1,200 in the ceiling on the pension that can be paid to the dependent parents. I do not think the minister has advanced sufficient reasons for failing to increase that figure in this particular case.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Coming into force.
Howard Charles Green: Before we discuss clause 2 I should like to move an amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Lake Centre, reading as follows:
That the following section be added as section 1 (a) of Bill No. 27:
1. (a) An increase in pension paid to any person by virtue of section 1 shall not be included as income for the purposes of the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1946.


The Chairman:: Order. I will put the amendment before the committee.


Howard Charles Green: As I pointed out in my remarks on second reading, this is similar wording to that which was used in the amendment to the Pension Act contained in chapter 23 of the statutes of 1948. Here we have this position. The Department of Veterans Affairs administers both the pension and the war veterans allowance. A bill is brought in to increase the pension, and in the case of the small pensioner the result is to cut the war veterans allowance so that in a good many thousand cases these pensioners will get no benefit whatever from the increase now being brought in unless there is some provision that they will not have the same or some amount deducted from the war veterans allowance.
I do not intend to repeat the submission I made earlier in the afternoon, but I do urge upon the minister that he accept this amendment. If he does, the result will be that when the pension increases come into effect on January 1, 1952, the small pensioners who are drawing war veterans allowance will be able to get this increase without taking a cut in the war veterans allowance which, of course, would result in their income being just the same as it is today.
The minister has referred to the amendment to the Pension Act which was passed in 1948, and has pointed out, just as I did in my remarks, that the provision in that act
Pension Act
referred to a lump sum payment which was going to pensioners because the increase in pension was made retroactive for a period of approximately six months. He said because there was that difference there was no reason to make any such amendment to the present act. Actually, if he administers -the War Veterans Allowance Act properly during these winter months he will have exactly the same situation, because the increase in pension will constitute overpayments, and under the law his war veterans allowance board will have to take those overpayments into consideration. In that way the amount received by the pensioner will be cut back to what he would have received if there had been no increase.
The main consideration here should be to make certain that these small pensioners, who are also on war veterans allowance, get the benefit of this pension increase. It will not be very great for them because they are not the pensioners receiving high amounts. I think the maximum would be a 35 per cent single pensioner and a 45 per cent pensioner if married, because over and above those figures the pensioner cannot qualify for any war veterans allowance. Therefore the increase in pension will not run into very large amounts; but for these veterans every five cents means a great deal. Every five cents or ten cents may mean the difference between getting a meal or not getting it. With prices high, as they are, and going higher all the time, many of these men are suffering greatly and will suffer more during the winter weather. I would urge on the minister that he accept this amendment. If it is not exactly in the proper terms, then accept an amendment which would bring about the result I am after, which is that the increase in pension given with the right hand shall not be taken away with the left because the war veterans allowance is reduced.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: I must say that I have very great doubt about the amendment being in order, because it has the effect of increasing the charge on the public exchequer and such an amendment must be moved by a minister of the crown. I will be glad to hear hon. members on the amendment.


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Chairman, I think you should have no doubt about it. Even the hon. member arguing his amendment pleaded with the minister to accept it, even though it did not meet all the conditions, and make it his own amendment, or put it in other terms.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That shows how generous he is.

Pension Act


Alphonse Fournier: He did it in a very able way, and I congratulate him. But in his own mind he knows that this will increase the expenditure which was announced in the message the minister gave when he first brought in the resolution. The hon. member made quite a plea for the committee to agree to the amendment, but if he looks at section 54 of the British North America Act he will see that a member, and even a minister, cannot move an amendment to increase an outlay without communicating to the house a message from the governor general. This would certainly increase the amount. There would be no object in moving the amendment if it did not increase the amount to be spent on the veterans. I really think that the hon. member will admit that his amendment is out of order.


Howard Charles Green: The Minister of Public Works is perfectly right when he says it would mean a larger payment to these small pensioners. I would hope that the minister himself would agree to some such provision being written into the law so these men will not suffer.


Alphonse Fournier: I do not think even the minister could move that amendment at this stage. We would have to refer the matter back and submit it to the governor general, and then give the message to the house that he has been informed of the subject matter of the resolution and recommends it to the consideration of the house. We would not be in order in moving it at this stage in committee.


John George Diefenbaker: I am sure that would be a very easy thing to do. I suggest the minister do that immediately in order to meet a situation with which apparently the minister agrees but which, as he says, is faced with difficulties.


Alphonse Fournier: I never agreed that this should be done.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: We have had instances in this house before where that has been done while you wait.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Citation 458 of Beauchesne's third edition reads:
A motion to amend a bill so as to provide for the appointment of additional government officials is out of order as it involves an increased grant of public money.
I must rule the amendment out of order.


Mr. Harkness:: May I just add my voice to that of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra in urging the government to move the necessary resolution, get the permission of the governor general and so on. In other words, I urge the government to go through

the regular form and have something written into this bill so the situation which has been outlined will not continue, and those receiving small pensions may have them increased without the amount being taken off the war veterans allowance cheque if they are also recipients of that allowance. It seems ridiculous that a large number of pensioners who are drawing comparatively small disability pensions and are also in receipt of war veterans allowance should have the one cheque they receive increased, we will say by $10 or $15, and then have the war veterans allowance cheque knocked down by the same amount. Surely there are no insuperable difficulties in the way. It would not place any considerable strain on the treasury to do what has been suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and write something into this particular bill which would prevent that situation occurring.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think we should be clear as to what will be the effect if the minister does not adopt this suggestion. What is happening is that having virtually admitted that this is a proper thing, that this is to be done at the next session, the minister nevertheless refuses to take any action now. In other words, as I said a few moments ago, these men are to be left to stew in their own juice, not because of any reason that has been given but because of what can only be described as stubborn unwillingness to change a view expressed.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Schedule A agreed to.
On schedule B-Scale of pensions for death.
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister once again if he will not consider moving an amendment? I will not go through the routine that we experience so often of moving an amendment and having it ruled out of order, but I do suggest that it would be in order for the minister to move an amendment to schedule B. The suggestion I make is that the figure $900 in the second column, top line, be changed to $1,200 and that the figure $1,008 in the second column, second line, be changed to $1,200. The effect of that would be to raise the ceiling on the amount of pension payable to dependent parents to $1,200 a year or $100 a month.
If the Minister of Public Works feels inclined to say that that would require the approval of the governor general to a prior resolution, may I point out to him that the

resolution preceding this bill did not fix a ceiling. The resolution as introduced by the minister read as follows:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Pension Act to provide for increases in the rates of pension for disability and for death under the act.
When the notice of motion regarding that resolution was first presented to the house the minister stood in his place and said:
His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
There was no ceiling placed on the amount, and I submit that within the terms of the rules of the house the minister would be perfectly in order in now moving as an amendment that the dependent parents' pension be increased to $100 per month.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 29, to amend the Judges Act, 1946.
He said: Mr. Speaker, during the resolution stage of this bill I was indebted to my colleague, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier), for attending to this item for me. I must say in confirmation that the information he gave to the house covered all the points in the bill and was all accurate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Even if he got it from the press.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is right.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I suppose now that I can speak as a member of the bar of British Columbia it would be in order for me to say that I agree there is need for an increase in the number of judges which is provided by this bill. I should like to take advantage of this opportunity to ask the minister with regard to a matter about which I made inquiry the other day, namely the report in the press to the effect that under the prospective amendments to be suggested or which have already been suggested by the criminal law commission provision is being made for the extension of the jurisdiction of district or county court judges. In view of the fact that the minister will shortly be leaving and will not be here to discuss this matter I wonder if he would amplify the statement he made the other day that no interim report had yet been received from that
Judges Act
commission. If that report has since been received, and if it provides for a considerable widening of the jurisdiction now enjoyed by county court or district judges, the opportunity is now available to him to make a statement on what I consider one of the most important matters to come before parliament, either at this or succeeding sessions.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I confirm what I said on the last occasion when my learned friend inquired about this matter, that we have not as yet received a report, interim or otherwise, from the commission. They are meeting in Ottawa at the present time, or at least they were yesterday, and are hoping that this will be the last time they will need to confer with one another. I would not think we will have the product of their present conference in its final form for at least a month, if not longer. Until I receive that first written communication concerning their deliberations, I regret that I would not be in a position to reply to my hon. friend's question.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, as a layman I want to say a few words about this bill. I suppose it might almost be considered presumption on my part to speak on a bill of this type, particularly following the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). I know that an increase in the number of county court judges in the province of British Columbia is necessary because of the amount of work they have to do as a result of the increase in population. During the last two or three years I have noted that some of the county court judges are rather overworked. They are doing an immense amount of work at the present time, and that fact is not generally recognized by a large number of people.
In my opinion county court judges are a very important cog in the administration of justice. On the one hand there are the magistrates in the lower courts and on the other hand the justices of the higher courts, but it is my observation that the county court judges have the greatest amount to do with the greatest number of people. In years past I have had close association with some excellent county court judges in the interior of British Columbia, and it is generally recognized by people who know that they have rendered excellent service to the country.
During the war I had the opportunity of close association with some county court judges, particularly one who is now a justice of the supreme court of British Columbia, in connection with conciliation and arbitration boards. I shall never forget one case where one of these county court judges was the

Supreme Court Act
chairman of the board. Some of the workingmen interested in arbitration spoke to me. They were of the opinion that the judge would naturally be wholly in favour of one side and would support that side. As the hearings proceeded I was very interested to notice that, as the judge came in close contact with these men and as they listened to what he had to say, their opinion changed; and when the proceedings were over they willingly recognized his painstaking methods and fairness in approaching the question under dispute. I think the county court judges of British Columbia have performed excellent service in many fields that are strictly outside court work.
As far as my own district of Kootenay is concerned, we are very fortunate in having had a succession of excellent men acting as county court judges. I have been informed by a good number of people representing all parties in this house how much they appreciate the excellent work that is being done by the present incumbent of the office of county court judge in the Kootenays.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a measure to amend the Supreme Court Act to provide an increase in the maximum salary of the registrar from eight thousand to eight thousand five hundred dollars.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister make
a statement on this matter?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In connection with the bill
to which this resolution will lead, and in connection with the other bill the resolution leading to which is on the order paper, I might say that' these are cases where the ceiling of the emolument of the officer of the court is fixed by statute. The result has been that in the salary adjustments that have been allowed the civil service during the past few years it has not been possible to include these gentlemen because of the statutory ceiling upon their salaries.


John George Diefenbaker: When was that statutory ceiling first provided?
[Mr. Herridge.l


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think it has always been in the statute in each case. If my hon. friend has not the statute before him, I have a pamphlet copy here if he wishes to see it. He will see that in setting up the office of registrar in each case it is provided that he shall exercise certain functions and shall be paid such salary as the governor general in council shall allow up to and not exceeding a certain sum. That is unlike other civil servants, who have no such statutory limit upon their salaries. The Department of Justice has received representations from the chief justice of Canada in the case of the supreme court, and from the president of the exchequer court in the case of that court, to the effect that it hardly seemed fair that these particular civil servants should be subject to such a ceiling which left their emoluments in a position of disparity as compared with those of other civil servants when the latter received increases in pay.
Our method of disposing of this request was to make a careful comparison with the emolument of the registrar of the supreme court of Ontario in Toronto, whose work is much the same in character, although in a court which would not ordinarily carry the same degree of dignity and importance as the Supreme Court of Canada. We have tried to relate the increase provided by the present amendment to the salary paid to the registrar of the Ontario high court at Osgoode hall.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister stated that in arriving at the amount fixed in the bill for the salary of the registrar a comparison was made with the amount paid to the registrar of the Ontario high court of justice. Would the minister say what amount is paid to the official in question?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes. My recollection is that it is $1,000 less than the salary we propose for the incumbent of the Supreme Court of Canada.


Mr. McLure:: What are the duties of a registrar, and what are his qualifications?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think perhaps I can answer that by giving you the qualifications of the gentlemen who hold these positions at the present time. In the case of the Exchequer Court of Canada, the gentleman in question is a barrister at law of forty years standing. After his appointment in 1908 as a Rhodes scholar from Manitoba he attended Oxford university, took the English bar examination there, and was called to the English bar in 1911. He was a member of the honourable society of the inner temple and later in the same year was admitted to the bar of

Manitoba. He practised law in Winnipeg from 1911 to 1923, later entering the dominion civil service where he acted for many years, until he was finally appointed to his present position. He is the chief administrative officer of the court. In addition to that he is a taxing officer, with authority to tax party and party costs which are incurred in court. Also, he has the jurisdiction of an exchequer court judge in chambers, and conducts inquiries into damages, in patent and other actions referred to him for that purpose.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: But the registrar has no judicial duties?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Oh, yes.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: He does not plead a case, decide a case or anything of that nature.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: As I have already indicated, his duties as a taxing officer are semi- or quasi-judicial, and his duties in exercising the jurisdiction of an exchequer court judge in chambers are judicial in character. Then his duties in connection with references to him under the act are also judicial in character. In that respect he compares to a master or referee in a high court.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: After all, he would be called only a clerk. A county court clerk would be the same thing.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, my hon. friend would be quite wrong in supposing that. The judicial duties of which I have spoken are altogether different from those of a county court clerk.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Minister of Justice gave us an interesting account of the gentleman who occupies the position in the other court. Has he the same material with respect to the registrar of the supreme court?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: They are much the same in both cases.


Gordon Graydon: The registrar of the supreme court has the additional qualification of having been a cabinet minister.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Garson thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 30, to amend the Supreme Court Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the second time?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Could it not be done now? It is a very simple matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We had better see it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Next sitting.
Exchequer Court Act EXCHEQUER COURT ACT



AMENDMENT TO INCREASE MAXIMUM SALARY OF REGISTRAR

Stuart Sinclair Garson: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a measure to amend the Exchequer Court Act to provide an increase in the maximum salary of the registrar from six thousand five hundred to seven thousand five hundred dollars.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: What are the duties of this official? Does he not have the capacity of a clerk?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No. Both these gentlemen to whom I have referred are registrars of courts. As I tried to explain a moment ago, the work of a registrar covers all the clerical duties my hon. friend has in mind in the case of the clerk of a county court; but in addition to that they have other duties of a quasi-judicial character, to which I have already made reference. For instance they have jurisdiction and power to try interlocutory motions of certain types which it would be quite proper to bring before a judge of the court. Lawyers who are involved in these cases come before the registrar to plead these interlocutory motions. The registrar, will sit on such motions and render a decision.
In the same way a judge of the court has power to refer certain matters back to the registrar for judicial decision. When these references are made the registrar of the court will sit and listen to counsel on both sides in precisely the same way a judge would, and will render judgment on the reference. So the registrar combines clerical duties with duties which I think might properly be described as judicial, or if not judicial in the exact sense, certainly they are quasi-judicial.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: They cannot plead a case.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No. Any officer of the court has to be a barrister of several years standing, but once he is appointed he has to give up his practice of law. As a matter of fact, in connection with the court we are now discussing the position is very much a fulltime job, because the volume of business done by the Exchequer Court of Canada is very great.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I am opposed to both these increases in salary, and for this reason: We have been struggling all along to get increases for people such as pensioners and persons on retirement incomes. Yet when we come to these higher positions, where the

Exchequer Court Act
salaries are already large and remunerative, the government goes to work and gives a big increase. Possibly it is all due to the surplus. These officials see an opportunity of getting something out of that immense surplus that may be on hand at the end of the year.
Notwithstanding what the Minister of Justice has just said, these men are just clerks, although they carry the glorified name of registrar. In our county courts throughout the provinces our clerks are doing the same class of work. Their qualifications may not be as high as those of registrars. I must say that I believe these increases are uncalled for under present conditions. These people cannot be described as overworked civil servants, or as civil servants overburdened with work. If you look at what a registrar or county court clerk does, you will find that he works about two hundred days a year. He is receiving a fine salary without any increase. If the minister wants to stand in properly with those for whom we have been pleading in the other branches of the service, and the men who have given war service, he should withdraw this measure. These men are overpaid now.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In fairness to these gentlemen and the courts which they serve, I believe I should place on the record, in relation to the remarks which have just been made by the hon. member for Queens, the fact that in the supreme court of Ontario at Osgoode hall the senior master receives $8,500 a year, the master $7,500 and the registrar $7,500. When one takes into account the fact that the Exchequer Court of Canada receives business from one end of Canada to the other it does not seem unreasonable that the registrar of the exchequer court should get as much as but no more than the registrar of the supreme court of Ontario.


John George Diefenbaker: When we were dealing with the supreme court amendment the minister was good enough to place on the record the qualifications of the registrar of the exchequer court. Since these two matters have become intertwined, perhaps he would be good enough to place on the record the qualifications of the registrar of the supreme court.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I should be glad to do so. The gentleman who is now the registrar, Mr. Paul Leduc, was appointed as registrar of the supreme court on October 1, 1940. He had practised law in Ottawa from 1915 to 1934, at which time he became a cabinet minister in the Ontario government. He was a prominent member of the Belcourt firm of this city which did a great deal of agency work for firms in other parts of Canada, particularly

in the province of Quebec. In that way when he was appointed, although a lawyer residing in Ontario, he had had considerable experience in the Ontario practice and the civil law practice of the province of Quebec in relation to the appeals which would come to the supreme court from that province. He was a member of the bar of both provinces. I believe that in every respect he was qualified to become an official of the court.


John George Diefenbaker: Now that the supreme court, with the exception of the few appeals that are still en route or in the privy council, is the final court, what has the minister to say as to any increase in the duties and responsibilities of the registrar over what they were prior to the abolishment of appeals to the privy council?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The hon. member is quite right in implying by his question that inevitably there will be an increase in the volume of work in the supreme court over what formerly obtained. As yet I do not think we have been able to accurately measure the extent of that increase.


John George Diefenbaker: Has the minister any statistics at all?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, we have not. One reason for not attempting to secure them is that we think the time is too short to accurately measure any increase in that work.


John George Diefenbaker: Has there been a material increase in consequence of making the supreme court the final court of appeal?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think I would be correct in saying there has been. I would not say a material increase, but a significant increase. Whether that is due to the abolition of appeals to the privy council I believe it would be difficult to say; for the time within which appeals from cases which were current at the time the amendment to the Supreme Court Act was passed has not yet run out. Until that time does run out the privy council is just as available as the court of last resort for cases then current as it has been heretofore. It will not be until that period has run out that we can trace with any accuracy the effect upon the volume of work in the supreme court which the abolition of appeals to the privy council might bring about.


John George Diefenbaker: When will it run out?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It is not a definite period. It will run out when the last time for appeal has lapsed for a case which was current in the trial court at the time the legislation came into effect. It is very difficult to forecast just when that will be.


John George Diefenbaker: One other thing in connection with the exchequer court. I take it from the recital of the responsibilities of the registrar that one of his duties is to bring to the attention of the judges the question of judgments which should have been rendered. I do not raise this by way of criticism at the moment, but I do believe something should be done to assure more expedition in the giving of judgments in the exchequer court. The delay in some of these cases is difficult to explain to one's clients. After all, in the administration of justice it is just as important that justice be rendered with expedition as it is that justice be rendered. I would suggest that the attention of the registrar be directed to the situation.
Has the minister any record before him showing the number of judgments that are a year and a half overdue, or even more than that? The situation is not due in any degree to the judges; nonetheless it is the subject of very strong criticism across the country.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It just so happens, Mr. Chairman, that within the past week I received a report upon the arrears of judgments in the Exchequer Court of Canada. While I cannot recall the exact figures I am quite certain there was a substantial reduction in the number of delayed judgments from what was the case on the last occasion I had cause to check it. I sent this list to one of my colleagues as a matter deserving comment, and I am sure he would regard it with some gratification. There has been a distinct improvement in the condition to which the hon. member refers, although I agree there were formerly good grounds for his observation.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank the minister for that explanation. I do not want to ask a question on the order paper, but if he has a record showing the present condition of judgments it would be most helpful. In the past these delays have been unexplainable to clients and sometimes, in the opinion of those who know, inexcusable. A delay of one and a half or two years after a case has been heard might very well lead to a condition of affairs where the judge would remember the name of the case but the facts would long since have passed into the limbo of forgotten things. Regardless of the notes a judge takes, unless a judgment is delivered within a reasonable time certainly the client who loses the case is always of the opinion that had the judgment been given earlier the result might have been otherwise.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I have just received from my efficient staff here the statistics in question. For the year 1950 there are seven judgments outstanding; for the year 1949, one. That is
Exchequer Court Act
the lot. I think the hon. member for Lake Centre will agree that is definitely an improvement from the situation of, say, two years ago.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, that is an improvement. How many are outstanding of those heard in 1951?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: There are a number.


John George Diefenbaker: Has the minister the record of that?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: How many?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Twenty-two in 1951. But my hon. friend knows that it is still necessary to be realistic. They may be outstanding for two days. As soon as the argument is heard and the case is closed, they become outstanding right away. To be realistic about a thing like this, the statistics should be in relation to the preceding year.


John George Diefenbaker: That is true. Now that the minister has the statistics before him, is he able to say how many judgments were given in 1951 in cases heard in 1948?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, I have not that statistic. They do not come in that form.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister has not that information?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No. I could get it for my hon. friend if he wishes me to do so.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I should like to ask one question about the registrar. At first, when the minister was speaking about him, I thought that he did all the work for the judges. But now I understand that he has a staff under him. What staff are under the registrar in carrying out his duties?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am afraid that I cannot at the moment give accurate figures in that regard. I shall be glad to get them and give them to my hon. friend. The registrar has a staff. He needs stenographers and clerical staff because the volume of litigation in these courts is large and a staff is required for that purpose. Then a good deal of the registrar's time is taken up with these judical duties that I was speaking about. The taxing of bills of costs takes up a great deal of time, as does the hearing of these interlocutory motions and the hearing of references. My hon. friend would be under a quite wrong impression if he thought that this gentleman was just a sort of glorified county court clerk with a staff of clerks under him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Both the hon. member for Queens and the Minister of Justice have addressed themselves to the question of

Exchequer Court Act
whether or not these registrars are persons of some importance or whether they are, in their words, just clerks. I think we should be careful about our use of that word. Sometimes a person who holds the position of clerk is an extremely important person.


Gordon Graydon: There is one at the end of the table.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is exactly the person I am thinking of. In other words, it can be quite an honour to be called a clerk, and I am sure we all feel that way with respect to the Clerk of the House of Commons. The question I wanted to put to the minister is this. What is the relation between the volume of work of the Supreme Court of Canada and that of the Exchequer Court of Canada?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: As to the actual number of cases handled, the volume would be substantially more in the Exchequer Court of Canada than in the Supreme Court of Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then does it follow that the work of the registrar of the exchequer court is heavier than that of the registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think the accurate answer to that question is that probably it would be, in quantity; but not as to quality or degree of responsibility.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I notice that we pay the man who does the most work $1,000 less than the man who does the least work.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I did not say that. I said the work was greater in quantity but that the quality of responsibility involved was not necessarily as great. I think my hon. friend would probably agree that, having regard to the fact that one is a trial court and the other one is the highest court of appeal in the land, there is some ground for a distinction in salary between the two.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But is it not true that in both cases the judicial functions exercised by these registrars are pretty much the same?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Well-


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Mr. Maclnnis:: I was rather interested in the answer the Minister of Justice gave to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. He said that the work might be the same or a little more in quantity in the exchequer court but might differ in quality. I should like to know what he means by that.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: What I said was the quality or the responsibility involved. The difference is this. To repeat myself, as I am bound to do because I think there is a certain

element of repetition in my hon. friend's question, may I say that the exchequer court, as my hon. friend knows, is the lowest trial court in respect of certain classes of action between the subject and the crown, patent actions and the like.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is, it is a court of first instance.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, it is a court of first instance. If a case involves subject matter of that type it is tried before the exchequer court. The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court of appeal in the whole country. It is the court of last resort. By statute the registrar is given the rank of a deputy minister. The representations we received were to the effect that we should have salaries higher than those which we have authorized, but these are the amounts that have been approved by treasury board. In arriving at them we have tried to make a comparison of the actual work done by these gentlemen -that is, the kind of the actual work done- with the work done by the registrars of other courts, particularly the supreme court of Ontario at Osgoode hall in Toronto.


Angus MacInnis: Then am I to understand the situation is that as the supreme court is a higher court than the exchequer court- although both courts are dealing with the matter of justice-regardless of the amount of work done by the registrar of either court, in view of the fact that the registrar of the supreme court is connected with the highest court in the land as a matter of prestige his salary should be higher?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I would not say that. If my hon. friend will reflect for a moment upon the fact that all the appeals from the ten provinces of Canada come to the Supreme Court of Canada, he will understand better what is involved. Not only appeals from the highest courts of these provinces but appeals from the county courts, if there are any, and also appeals from the Exchequer Court of Canada all come to the Supreme Court of Canada. In that way all of the more difficult and more controversial cases which have not, in the opinion of the counsel involved, been decided properly by the lower courts in the various provinces and in the exchequer court come to the Supreme Court of Canada. And the registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada has a duty in relation to it corresponding to that of the registrars of these lower courts. If my hon. friend went to any one of the provinces he would find the same distinction between the county court clerk and the clerk of the higher court. No person argues that the county court clerk in large cities does not handle more

individual cases, but he does not get as large a salary because the quality of the responsibility which he has in relation to these cases is not considered to be as great as that of the registrar or clerk of the higher court, where usually larger amounts of money and more complicated legal issues are involved.


Mr. Blackmore:: Before the resolution carries I should like to get some idea of the number of cases this man would try. The minister says he has the power and the jurisdiction to try cases. Is there any way of forming some sort of estimate as to the average number of cases he would be called upon to try in the course of a year?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I should like to emphasize that this gentleman does not try any cases in the ordinary sense in which we usually use the word "case". What he tries are motions of what are called an interlocutory character; that is, for example, motions for an order for an examination for discovery, and other types of motions which are made before the actual trial of the case comes on and which would be made to the judge if the registrar did not have the authority to try them.
Another type of matter that the registrar tries is this. After the case is over he sits in judgment to determine what costs the successful party can tax against the unsuccessful party. In that connection he has to exercise the same type of judgment that a judge would exercise if he were determining the matter. Then he also has to deal with matters which are referred to him in his capacity as registrar by the judge, being matters of lesser importance than the trial of the case itself yet perhaps more detailed. He looks after those in a judicial capacity.
I must say that I cannot tell my hon. friend offhand how many these would be in number. I would have to get that information and supply it to him, but I have no doubt at all that they would be quite substantial. That is in addition to this other work of looking after all these documents and seeing that cases are properly set down, subpoenas are issued and all the other work a registrar does.


John Horne Blackmore: I must confess that all this is entirely new to me, but that does not make any difference to my responsibility as being one of those in this house who should contribute a little bit toward looking after the public purse. I shall have to ask a question or two to become informed on the matter. I should like to get some sort of idea of how much time on the average would be involved in trying one of these interlocutory cases.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
Exchequer Court Act


John Horne Blackmore: To the lawyers it is clear; it is a matter for fun. Well, it would not be a matter of fun to some of the farmers who have a mortgage on their property. We here have some responsibility, and I should like the minister to give information on the amount of work that is done. I do not mind paying this man; I have no objection at all to that, but I do feel that before we vote unanimously on a proposal like this we should get some sort of satisfaction as to whether or not the man is really earning the money.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not know how I can emphasize any more strongly than I have already attempted to do that these positions are not in any sense sinecures. This particular position we are talking about, and in relation to which my hon. friend has just asked his question, is very much a full-time job that he works at the whole year round. In connection with that my hon. friend asks, how long does he spend on one of these interlocutory motions. I would say that it might range from perhaps an hour as a minimum to several hours. It depends upon the issues that are involved in the particular motion that comes before him. There will be a wide variation in the time it will take to deal with any one of these motions or references. It depends upon the facts and the points that are being raised and the like, and also probably upon the long-windedness of the counsel involved. Therefore no universally accurate answer can be given to my hon. friend's question. I do want to emphasize that this is not a matter of a man going down to the courthouse, hearing a motion and then going off to play golf or going home. He is there all the time in the ordinary course of his duties. When he absents himself from his office to hear these motions that are made [DOT]before him, or to deal with these references, the office has to remain open for the filing of papers, the issuing of court documents and the like, and that is the reason he has to have a staff.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Garson thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 31, to amend the Exchequer Court Act.



CIVIL SERVICE ACT


Frederick Gordon Bradley: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a measure to amend the Civil Service Act in respect of the tenure of office and salaries of the commissioners.

Civil Service Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister like to make a statement?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: The present salaries of the civil service commissioners are greater than those actually specified in the Civil Service Act, the authorization for this being obtained annually by means of a special item in the estimates.
It is the purpose of the present amendments to the act to avoid the necessity of having recourse to the estimates by providing that the salaries of the civil service commissioners shall be set by the governor in council, which may also, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, retain the services of a commissioner beyond the age of 65 years.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this has a little more to it than met the eye when one looked at the resolution. I have referred to the salaries of the civil service commissioners several times as an example of something that needs to be tidied up in our financial administration. The Secretary of State has just pointed out their salaries are fixed by statute at a certain amount, but in addition to that they have been receiving a further $2,000 by virtue of items in the estimates. For example, in the estimates of the current year, passed in the session that ended last June, there is item 76 which includes $2,000 for each of the commissioners additional to the amount provided by chapter 53 of the statutes of 1947. I have pointed out several times how the Auditor General has frowned upon this practice. He has stated that we should not legislate by having an item in the estimates year after year. If there is something we want to make permanent it should be written into the statutes. I have suggested several times that that recommendation of the Auditor General should be implemented, namely that this statute should be amended so as to provide therein for the full amount of salary being paid to the civil service commissioners.
When I saw this resolution on the order paper I complimented the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley), when I was speaking on the Financial Administration Act, upon what I felt was the intent of this resolution. From what has just been said I gather that this resolution goes a great deal further. It will take the question of the salaries of the civil service commissioners right out of the statute, right out of the control of parliament, and make them subject only to the governor in council. I strongly object to that being done.
We have just had a debate on two measures which fixed salaries by statute. There was no change in the general principle of parliamentary control over those salaries. Earlier we

passed an amendment to the Judges Act in which the salaries of judges are fixed by statute. The salaries of cabinet minister are fixed by statute. I realize that the salaries of deputy ministers are not, and in fact I was surprised the other night when 1 learned that the salary of a certain deputy minister had been increased over and above what was indicated in the current estimates.
I think we should have some explanation as to why we are being asked to change the statute in this way. I think the government should tell us also whether they have any intention after this bill is passed of increasing the salaries of the civil service commissioners. At the present time they receive by way of statute and an item in the estimates $12,000 for the chief commissioner and $10,000 for the other two. I was sympathetic with the hon. member for Queens (Mr. McLure) a while ago in his attitude toward raising these other salaries, but those were salaries in brackets lower than these now under review.
As I say, I am wondering whether the bill to be based on this resolution will increase these salaries. At least we in parliament know in most cases what is happening, whereas this proposal seems to take this matter right out of our control. I question whether we should be asked to accept this without further explanation, without the government taking parliament completely into their confidence as to their plans.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, following the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) I wish to protest at having a resolution in these terms placed before us. There is nothing in this resolution to indicate what the legislation to follow is to be. If we are not told that in the resolution, we may as well have no resolution at all. How are hon. members going to be able to prepare themselves to debate the substance of legislation if there is nothing in a resolution to indicate what is going to be done? To use the vulgar term, in the sense that it is common, a resolution like this is merely making monkeys out of hon. members. The Civil Service Act is to be amended in a very important way and there is no indication whatsoever in the resolution as to what is to be done. Surely the house is entitled to more respect. What was referred to the governor general? What was he told? The resolution reads:
That it is expedient to present a measure to amend the Civil Service Act in respect of the tenure of office and salaries of the commissioners.
I know what I would say if I were the governor general. I do not think I would

take it under consideration when I was offered a resolution like that. I would tell the fellow to bring me back a resolution that meant something, that I could understand. There is nothing in this resolution that indicates anything. The government may be going to abolish the Civil Service Act altogether. They may be going to pay the civil service commissioners $100,000 a year instead of $10,000 or $12,000, or they may be going to reduce them to $1,000. It is just the sheerest nonsense, and I am surprised that the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley) should offer so little explanation when asked to explain the resolution.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with what has been said previously. I do not know which is the worst. We have a resolution which the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) has described as being completely inadequate and on the other hand we have had a slight glimpse at what is actually going to be done. The result is most unsatisfactory. We will certainly need considerable satisfying as to why these salaries should be placed in a corner and dealt with in a different way from other salaries.
I can easily keep this going until 6.15, but I suggest that we give an opportunity to the Secretary of State to give us further information. If you will allow me to adjourn the debate, I shall, and if you will not, I shall continue until 6.15.


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, this is really a simple resolution and as soon as it is passed hon. members will receive copies of the bill. I am not supposed to go into details, and I do not know whether my colleague will agree when I state that what we want is the power to extend the tenure of office of the commissioners beyond ten years. That seems to be the important section.


Mr. Tuslin:: What will that mean?


Alphonse Fournier: That would take them to 65 or 70 years. There is not very much in the bill, and I do not think we should go on too long before we have the bill.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Only three minutes.


Alphonse Fournier: The house can be kept going, as has been evidenced in the past, but generally the house takes more time on more important bills. I am not saying, of course, that this is not important; but it is not one of those major bills that imply a change of policy on the part of the government which would affect the lives of thousands of citizens. Experience has shown that perhaps it would
94699-96a
Dominion Elections Act be a good thing if we had the power to extend the term of office of the chairman and the commissioners of the civil service commission, which in my opinion is doing very good work. We can keep it up until 6.15.


Gordon Graydon: You practically have.


Alphonse Fournier: We have time yet.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: As I understand it I have the floor and the minister has just been interrupting me-


Alphonse Fournier: I thought I was making a speech.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: -and making part of my speech. My motion is still before you, Mr. Speaker, that we adjourn the debate.


Alphonse Fournier: Then we can take up the other resolution concerning the elections act.
On motion of Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood) the debate was adjourned.



DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT


Frederick Gordon Bradley: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Dominion Elections Act to implement the recommendations of the special committee appointed to study the Dominion Elections Act, 1938, embodied in the draft bill prepared by the said committee and inter alia to make provision for: (a) a greater number of advance polls; and (b) the Canadian prisoners of war voting regulations, 1951.


Mr. Jean Francois Pouliot (Temiscouata):: Mr. Speaker, there are a few minutes left before adjournment, and I want to protest most strongly against defamation of the language of the law by some translators. They are crazy, and I say that with reference to the translators of legislation that comes before the House of Commons. I do not know what is wrong with them, but they try to pick out words that are understood by no one. They try to change the legislation completely. Some members protested before the committee and some members are indifferent. The minister knows about the situation. Why is it that some translators, whom I will describe in French as "abrutis, moches et mabouls"- there can be no stronger expression-try to discover words that are understood by no one? Do they suffer from neurasthenia? What kind of disease have they in their brains? They are awful. This kind of legislation has to be applied by many people throughout the country who do not speak English, and!

Dominion Elections Act they will not understand the language or the legislation. I hope when the bill comes before the house proper amendments will be brought forward in order that we may go back to the old language which is understood by all and A'hich has been used since confederation.
On motion of Mr. Pouliot the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: On Monday we will continue and hope to conclude the debate on the address. Then we will take up third
reading of Bill No. 34, an act to amend the Public Printing and Stationery Act. Then we will proceed with Bill No. 30, an act to amend the Supreme Court Act; Bill No. 31, an act to amend the Exchequer Court Act. Then we will take up the resolution in the name of the Secretary of State to amend the Civil Service Act and the other resolution in the name of the same minister to amend the Dominion Elections Act.
At 6.15 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on November 2, 1951.

Monday, December 3, 1951